Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/NWA.Rep/Questions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

General questions[edit]

  1. Skills and experience:
    a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
    A: I have a great deal of experience working in dispute resolution both on and off Wikipedia. In order to be a successful arbitrator, impartiality is the most important factor. Arbitrators rarely have to collaborate with each other so personality conflict has no bearing on this whatsoever. It is as close to a Supreme Court as Wikipedia has. --NWA.Rep (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.
    A:I had the misfortune of having my own arbCom case, which was part of Ideogram's successful, relentless effort to boot me off the project. I was vindicated somewhat when Ideogram was later banned by the community shortly after the conclusion of the arbCom case [[1]] (the concerted campaign to boot me off the project was part of the reason of his ban) and arbCom later lifted my edited restriction. Roughly a year later I caught him editing under a sock and reported the sock. As a result the ban was reset but I wouldn't be surprised if there are more socks unaccounted for. I was also involved in the IRC case from a few years back and PoolGuy sockpuppet farm case.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you?
    A:Every case is different and it really depends on the level of abuse or the type of abuse that occurred. I do believe that arbCom does a really poor job in terms of desysopping rogue admins. ArbCom should not allow them to continue to roam around and waste more arbCom's time by getting involved in more arbCom cases. Sockpuppetry also should never be tolerated. One other factor that would influence my decision is the level of their "content" contribution. A rogue admin who does little in the way of encyclopedic content is a lot more expendable than a content contributor and featured article writer. ArbCom should not be gun shy about desysopping admins who obviously do not have the community's confidence and would never stand a chance if they re-stand for rfa. There are plenty of editors out there who are qualified to be admins.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ArbCom and policies: ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
    A:Like I said, I view arbCom as the Supreme Court of Wikipedia and its role should strictly be to interpret, define, and clarify policies. It should not "make" or "alter" policy without community consensus.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ArbCom and article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, 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? Please give reasons.
    A:While not ruling on content dispute is a good way to avoid sensitive racial and political issues, NPOV is a big part of Wikipedia and when there is an obvious breach of NPOV or an obvious effort by rogues to gang patrol certain articles, ArbCom must take action because no one else could.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ArbCom and motions:
    a) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
    A:Disputes that require more immediate action. Disputes with scopes that aren't big enough to make a case out of.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    b) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
    A:No arbcom should always bow to community consensus.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    c) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2011 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.
    A:I haven't been around Wikipedia for awhile so I will refer to my previous statement on that.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
    a) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
    A:No this is Wikipedia not the CIA. After the issue is dealt with, private info should not be kept under any circumstances.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    b) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
    c) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
    A:Yes. One of the reasons many longtime users are disillusioned with Wikipedia is the lack of transparency in its power structure. Why not discuss in the talkpage or the relevant discussion page? Private communication infers you have something to hide. IRC, e-mail, secret mailing list should be kept to a minimum.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    d) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
    A:Like I said before, I haven't been involved, but I did not like how arbCom kept skirting the issues in the IRC case 3 years ago and there was also the Durova mailing list fallout...--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
    A:It is required to identify yourself to the foundation/committee, but it is unnecessary to publicly identify my real life identity if elected. I intend to keep my wiki-life, my professional life, and my personal life separate. What I stand on Wikipedia-related issues matter. My track record on Wikipedia matters. Who I am and what I do in my personal life is irrelevant since I have never try to invoke my credential in real life on Wikipedia.--NWA.Rep (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Division of responsibilities:
    a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
    A:ArbCom should generally be dealing with encyclopedia related issues such as content disputes, edit warring, etc. WMF is in charge of running the site, domain issues, and stuff that are unrelated to building the encyclopedia.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
    A:ArbCom is the last resort for dispute resolution. Issues should only be dealt by arbCom if the community is unable to deal with themselves.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
    a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
    A:There ain't no such things as "vested". Wikipedia's best asset is content contributors, unfortunately most of the power brokers are mere demagogues who are more into the politics than the encyclopedic contents. They game the rules and pile up edits by reverting vandalism and making stylistic changes. These people (mostly admins) are obviously not vested and should be prosecuted for their transgressions.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
    A:Factionism/Cliques run abound on Wikipedia. Behind the scene maneuvering from IRC or other source of communication leave a bitter taste in the average user's mouth. I accept faction and clique as part of life in every single organizational structure. Quite frankly, this is just human nature. But everyone should remember why they signed up on Wikipedia in the first place. We are here to build a free, comprehensive, unbiased encyclopedia. If you are not here for that, you should leave now. --NWA.Rep (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
    A:Yes like my answer to the previous question as well as my candidate statement, rampant factionism and admin abuse are turning a lot of potential valuable expert content contributors off. If these issues are not deal with seriously, then we are witnessing the slow death of Wikipedia as a credible resource.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Reflection on 2011 cases: Nominate the cases from 2011 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
    A:I haven't followed any cases this year but the IRC case was more than 3 years ago and we are still having problems with secret mailing list, IRC, and the overall lack of transparency. What a joke. --NWA.Rep (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
    A:My only beef with arbCom is that they should step their game up and start taking a hardline against drama queen admins with a godlike complex with no interest in actually writing mainspace articles. These unsavory admins are what is wrong with this project.--NWA.Rep (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Individual questions[edit]

Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question:
#:A: 

-->

Questions from Rschen7754[edit]

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide; thus, not answering specific questions will affect my recommendation. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those. Please note that question 3 has drastically changed from what it was in past years, though.

The first 9 questions are short answer questions. The last question is a bit open-ended.

  1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
    A: Way too long. It is absolutely necessary that ArbCom needs to improve its efficiency. It is the last resort for dispute resolution when all other dispute resolution methods are exhausted. If elected, I would push for a more efficient arbCom and propose some circuit courts system that has the authority to make binding decisions in lesser disputes (assuming arbCom is the Supreme Court) to speed up the dispute resolution process.--NWA.Rep (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
    A: No. While WikiProjects is a pretty good concept, some WikiProjects are used as a front to recruit editors with similar POV to gang patrol articles, canvassing, and harass editors who are trying to uphold NPOV. A prime example is WikiProject:China.--NWA.Rep (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. An editor has made many productive edits to articles on Wikipedia, including several featured articles. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators / experienced users tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
    A: An editor should be judged on his/her entire body of work. The big question is "is he/she a net positive to the project?" My take on the issue is that expert content contributors (featured article writers) are the biggest assets of Wikipedia because the ultimate goal is to write an encyclopedia. Nothing more. To me, these guys are a lot more valuable than the demagogues and power brokers who attained their position by piling up their edits through reverting vandalism and making stylistic changes and networking with the establishment. Frequently, we see 2 people in the middle of an edit war accusing of each other of personal attacks and incivility. They need to grow a thicker skin. The way I approach this is that since we are all here to build an encyclopedia, dispute should be about the content rather than personality. And just because someone say one of the seven dirty words without directing at anyone in particular does not constitute as incivility.--NWA.Rep (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?
    A: Again, the question is "is this person a net positive or a net negative to the project?" I have a low opinion of the establishment admins and power brokers who don't make mainspace contribution and write featured articles. Isn't this what the encyclopedia should be about? Why are you here if you don't care about improving the quality of encyclopedic content but only the behind-the-scene policy issues? And like I said in the previous question, just because someone used one of the seven dirty words without directly at anyone in particular does not constitute incivility or incompetence.--NWA.Rep (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
    A: For the most part no. I would never community ban a FA writer just to fulfill the egos of the insiders. Sometimes the devil's advocate is not always wrong and having dissenting opinions is what makes Wikipedia great. As far as incompetence, it really depends if the person is disruptive or not. Is he driving other editors to the edge? Is he disrupting the project? Is he exhausting the community's patience? For the most part, I think other Wikipedia policies are adequate to justify banning problem users without using WP:COMPETENCE as the sole cause.--NWA.Rep (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Do you believe that "it takes two to tango"? Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
    A: It comes down to good faith user vs. bad faith user. It's not that hard to identify who are the instigators of a dispute. One of Wikipedia biggest problems is that we try too hard to be politically correct and dogmatic when it comes to sanctions. Maybe it's time to use a little common sense. Wikipedia's editors are all "human". They have feelings and there are times when deliberate baiting drives a good faith editor to the edge. In these scenarios, ArbCom should definitely penalized the instigator more. It is really not that hard to identify who is really in the wrong.--NWA.Rep (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
    A: I think ArbCom needs to speed up the process when it comes to accepting cases and making decisions and I definitely think ArbCom should take on more cases than it does now. There are a lot battlegrounds/disputes that will never be resolved without ArbCom's involvement because all other dispute resolution venues are already exhausted. I like to see a more efficient ArbCom and perhaps a few circuit courts (assuming ArbCom is the supreme court) to speed up the dispute resolution process.--NWA.Rep (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
    A: Based on my track record, it should be obvious that I have an extreme low tolerance for sockpuppets, especially when they are used to circumvent 3RR in content disputes, falsely create a crowd atmosphere in a policy/content dispute, or evade community bans. Users who disrespect the community this way should be banned long-term or maybe even indefinitely. IP bans are also necessary to prevent more socking. Other unsavory user conducts such as a deliberate, concerted campaign to drive someone off Wikipedia, gaming the system, and other sort of deliberate disruption also deserve long-term ban. When someone is a net negative to the project, they have no place here.--NWA.Rep (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
    A: Yes--NWA.Rep (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
    A: Admin abuse is the biggest problem in the Wikipedia community. Many admins are unfit and unqualified. Many of them are not interested in improving mainspace contents. Many of them are so controversial that they have no chance of regaining their tools from the community if they ever get desysopped. I don't think admins should be for life. The community should be allowed to recall them under a set criteria (some admins are open to recall but many of them unilaterally change the recall criteria or refuse to step down after recall petitions are passed showing how hypocritical they really are) and I think they need to stand for re-election at least once every 4 years. There are plenty of good, new, fresh editors who would be capable admins. There's really no need to protect the old guards. The other issue is transparency. The power structure of Wikipedia. Unless it is a privacy issue, all communication should be on site (talkpage, discussion page) rather than through secret mailing list, IRC, or other venues. Mailing list should also be made public. People have the right to know.--NWA.Rep (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rschen7754 23:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Russavia[edit]

There is a still open RfC at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. As evidenced at this request, there are numerous admins and editors who have serious doubts over the Committee's unblocking of what is suspected, with a high level of good faith and WP:DUCK evidence, to be a banned disruptive sockpuppet. Do you think it is appropriate that after nearly a month and a half:

  1. the community is still none the wiser as to what exactly lead this sockpuppet to be unblocked? Your answer to this question is important, as the Committee has not indicated that there were any privacy concerns requiring this unblock to have been dealt with in secret.
  2. of being asked to identify themselves, those responsible for approving the unblock have still yet to do so, let alone follow a Committee members suggestion a month ago that those responsible for the unblock should be commenting?
  3. there is still no clear answer as to why an editor is told by the Committee that future concerns in relation to the editor should be taken to the community, with a heads up to the Committee (I still have the email from 24 September as evidence of this), whilst the clarification request is indicating that the Committee will deal with all future issues in relation to this editor? Despite the email from 24 September saying that the editor in question is not under any "protection" from the Committee, once could reasonably assume that this is the case, or...
  4. the Committee refuses to explicitly acknowledge that it may have erred in this case, and given lack of Committee response turn it back to the Community to deal with?

The last question is especially important as there are numerous uninvolved admins and admins who have previously dealt with the user in question, who are too "afraid" of going over the Committee's head, even in the face of evidence; if one assumes ownership of a problem as the current Committee has, then surely the current Committee must also assume ownership of their actual ownership of the problem possibly being part of said problem. If one looks at the answers thus far given at the request from arbiters closely, one can see that there seems to be a theme amongst arbs to suggest that the Community block the editor for other current issues; all the while the Committee avoids answering Community concerns at the actual clarification request. However, the other issues have only strengthened the opinion of sockpuppetry amongst other members of the Community.

A: I'm gonna answer all the questions in one breath. If elected, I would have no problem making sure ban-evading socks get banned permanently. It should be obvious from my track record that I take a hardline against sockpuppets of any kind. I was heavily involved in the arbitration case of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy who allegedly have the largest sockpuppet farm west of the Mississippi. I was also instrumental in the ban of major sockpuppet masters and POV pushers User:RevolverOcelotX and User:Ideogram. Even after their main accounts and sockpuppets were found and banned by admins, I continued to hunt for sleeper socks and report them to AN/I or admins who were previously involved. I was often frustrated by the reluctance of admins to block on sight. In fact, I was wikistalked by a rogue admin and later blocked during my last ArbCom campaign 3 years ago for questioning an admin's decision to unilaterally unban a major sockpuppet master with almost no discussion in the community whatsoever. If a sockpuppet is identified by checkuser, editing pattern established without a reasonable doubt and subsequently banned by the community (AN/I or the short-lived community sanction board) or the arbitration committee, the only way the said sockpuppeteer could return to editing is to appeal the ban through the proper venue. As far as I'm concerned, they forfeited their rights to edit on Wikipedia and no amount of wikilawyering could change that fact. What I'm saying is if I were elected, you would not have to worry about ArbCom being gun shy against socks.--NWA.Rep (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although you are not a currently sitting arb, I would also request a response to the following:

  1. if elected what will you do as an individual on the Committee to prevent such things from occurring in the future? that is, of course, apart from permabanning me or banning me from requesting that the Committee take responsibility for its actions :)

A: I'm not completely familiar with the specific case but my position on sockpuppet has been extremely consistent over the years. There should be no double standard and no exception. The presence of any sort of sockpuppet, whether it is ban-evading, canvassing, circumventing 3RR, creating a crowd atmosphere, should result in a ban of both the puppet master and all the socks and any sleeper sock that emerge in the future both through obvious editing pattern and checkuser request.--NWA.Rep (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. absent the declared issue of privacy concerns, do you think that BASC should publish all of its decisions with a clear rationale on wiki for Community review?

'A: Yes. Behind the scene canvassing through IRC, e-mail, private mailing list, or even messenger is detrimental to the project. Other than sensitive privacy issues, all other discussions should be transparent for all to see. There should not be a shroud of secrecy in the decision making process. The community deserves that much.'--NWA.Rep (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. how important do you think it is that editors should willingly admit when an error is made, fix it, and then move on?

A: I have no problem admitting my mistake. My biggest beef with many of the admins is their absolute refusal to acknowledge their mistake and continue to wikilawyer their way out of it. In this sense, the fact that I'm not an admin makes me a better candidate for ArbCom. If you look at the extended version of my candidate statement, you could see many instances of rogue admins with godlike complex refusal to acknowledge that they had done wrong despite outside observers in the community urging them to apologize. A prime example of that is admin User:David Levy staunch refusal to apologize in the aftermath of the Wikipedia talk:User pages/UI spoofing on my userpage despite most of the community telling him that he had done wrong. Instead he tried to blur the timeline and to shift the focus to censoring/wiki-stalking my contribution. Another instance is admin User:Viridae double standard in his enforcement of 3RR and subsequent refusal to apologize despite legitimate concerns about his conduct raised by outside observers on AN/I.--NWA.Rep (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Thryduulf (talk)[edit]

  1. Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.
    A: I will not recuse in any specific topic areas.
  2. If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case before you have opined (beyond "waiting for (more) statements" with no indication of leaning), how will you respond?
    A: No. Involved parties or observes who are involved in the dispute should be allowed to "arbitrator shop". Unless there is a clear rationale for recusal such as personally being involved in the dispute myself, I will not recuse.
  3. If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case after you have indicated your support, opposition or leanings, how will you respond?
    A: The answer would be the same as the previous question. This scenario doesn't make a difference to me.
  4. What are you feelings regarding a sitting arbitrator being a party to a case? Is there a conflict of interest? Does the level of their involvement in the events leading up to the case matter?
    A: If a sitting arbitrator is a party to a case, then he/she should obviously recuse to avoid the potential conflict of interest. But I don't see any other reason for recusal.
  5. If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?
    A: By recusing myself but only if I am a named party to the particular case.
  6. Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?
    A: Many arbitrators are also admins. I'm not and I consider that to be a plus. I'm not sure what you mean by lower-level dispute resolution. Do you mean AN/I, Rfc, etc? I'm not an admin, so my current involvement in AN/I is minimal. I do think when it comes to community consensus for policy discussion (see next question) and community banning of a disruptive user, just because someone is an arbitrator does not mean he should not weigh in. After all, we are all a part of the Wikipedia community.
  7. Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
    A: No every single Wikipedian has the right to weigh in on policy matters. I don't see any potential conflict.
  8. In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
    A: Many Wikipedians need to grow a thicker skin or life would be very hard for them. The mere use of one of the Seven Dirty Words without directing at anyone in particular or the citation of WP:DICK do not constitute incivility and personal attack. However, blatant personal attack should never be tolerated.--NWA.Rep (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Joe Gazz84[edit]

I would like to apologize for the late questions, I've only just gotten the time to write them. If you see a question that you've already answered or one that is similar, please proceed to answer it, you may think of a new way to explain your idea/answer. Please answer all of these questions, they will weigh in heavily when I vote.

  1. Can you please elaborate on what you answered above as to what needs changing? Why does that need changing? Why would that benefit the community and the committee?
    A: It is no secret that Wikipedia is losing many disillusioned mainspace content distributors due to its increasingly political nature. It is absolutely crucial to take a hardline against sockpuppets and abusive admins. It is also absolutely necessary for the so-called "establishment" to start writing some articles themselves. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We must not lose sight of that.
  2. Given that the committee doesn't create policy but only enforces policy set-forth by the community, do you believe it would be allowed or acceptable for the committee to set a policy if it sees a need for one?
    A: Community consensus create policy. ArbCom only interprets policy. I'm not an activist judge and I don't plan to become one if elected.
  3. An editor, who has been extremely helpful to the wiki and it's surrounding community (many good articles, helps clear backlogs, etc.) one day comes to ArbCom for breaking a rule, do you/would you discount the offense and let the user off with a "warning" not a full ban because they have a good history? Why or why not?
    A: I'm assuming this is a reference to Giano. I am a vocal supporter of the FA writers and content contributors, many of whom are frustrated by the constant political mudslingings and drama over frivolous issues. We must use common sense and remind ourselves that at the end of the day, Wikipeida is about improving the contents. We should judge someone by their contribution rather than if we like their personality or not. We must remember that no matter how much we dislike a fellow editor's personality, it is a real person behind the persona who has emotion and could make impulsive decision that he might regret. The second we stop caring about our fellow editors' feelings is the day our community will truly lose the ability to write a collaborative encyclopedia. That's a self-evident truth, in my mind, and one I'm not inclined to forget whilst contributing here.
  4. How do you know what your limits are when dealing with a case? (No, I will not define "limits", please use your interpretation of what I am asking.)
    A: I'm assuming you mean if I know when to recuse or if the dispute subject area is out of my expertise? I don't see any particular topic that I would recuse from. I always believe in judging an editor by his entire body of work (his contributions) rather than his persona. That's what this project works. We want a collaborative, comprehensive encyclopedia. As far as writing remedies and decisions, I believe in doing all my independent due diligence and research before coming to a decision.
  5. If you could sum-up your experience here at Wikipedia, in one word, what would it be and why? (This question has more meaning to it than you think, I care more about the "Why" part though.)
    A:It is hard to sum it up in just one word. Sometimes it was rewarding. Sometimes it could be hurtful or downright heartbreaking. Most of us are here because we believe this project and we love the concept of it all (isn't this what lure us here the first place?).

Thank you,  JoeGazz  ♂  22:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. If I may, in addition to the above, I'd like to know, why should we have reason to believe you're going to "behave" and "be good" as an arbitrator seeing as your block log is quite lengthy?
    A: Most of my blocks are either of 1 second apology variety or controversial blocks by one-sided rogue admins that does not have the support of the community (for example I was unjustly blocked in the Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/UI_spoofing. For full stories behind my blocks, please refer to User_talk:NWA.Rep/Statement#Personal_encounter_of_admin_abuse_on_Wikipedia.--NWA.Rep (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again,  JoeGazz  ♂  02:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Newyorkbrad[edit]

  1. In your statement and the answers to several of your questions, you've commented on the desirability of having one or more non-administrators as arbitrators. However, in deciding cases, ban appeals, etc. it is often necessary for arbitrators to utilize their administrator tools, particularly the ability to review deleted pages or revisions. If elected as an arbitrator, would you (1) request/accept temporary adminship for the duration of your term so that you could obtain this administrator right (note that this would require a chance to current policy), (2) have an RfA before your term begins, or (3) work as an arbitrator without this information and rely on the arbs who are administrators to provide it when necessary? (Please note that I am not either supporting or opposing here the idea of a non-admin arbitrator, but identifying a practical issue that would need to be addressed.)
    A: Arbitrators and administrators are vastly different capacities. Arbitrators are supreme justices who make rulings on important matters while administrators are janitors who serve the community and clean up vandals. In fact, I could argue that having sysop access could be detrimental for arbitrators since there is very likely a conflict of interest between being an arbitrator and carrying a mop. The interest of an arbitrators is also different from the interest of admins. I think, in a way, the fact that I am not an arbitrator make me more objective when dealing with arbCom cases. As for your valid concerns, I pledge that I will not seek adminship if elected. I also pledge that I will not request temporary administrator right. There are many means to obtain the necessary information when researching a case such as, as you stated, get other arbitrators/admins to provide the required information. The fact that I am not a sysop and am not interested in carrying the mop should not be a dealbreaker.
  2. During this election, you recently posed a question to another candidate that was full of insinuations and accusations that, based on the candidate's response, appear not to have been supported by the evidence. Will you apologize to this candidate for, at a minimum, the way you phrased the question? Will you commit, if elected as an arbitrator, to be more diligent in investigating concerns than you seem to have been in this instance?
    A: I'm not sure what question or "insinuations" you are referring to. The only question I have asked in this election was for Kww because I find his articles of interest and his stated personal information on his userpage rather incompatible. It is a valid concern many have raised to me about my own userpage, which I openly admit as semi-satirical. Throughout the years especially during my ArbCom run 3 years ago, many have asked me about the degree of authenticity on my own userpage. I simply asked this fellow candidate whether the info provided on his userpage is authentic or of a semi-satirical nature (like mine). Obviously given that he stated he was allegedly "tracked down" by Natalee Holloway's supporters (which is exactly why I will not released my personal information to the community) put this notion to rest and I appreciate his thorough answer. I'm not sure what "insinuations" and "accusations" you are talking about and I definitely don't' feel like I have anything to apologize for.--NWA.Rep (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your prompt answers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Anytime man. And just for the record, I have a great deal of respect for you as an arbitrator and previously as the clerk. I also really appreciate the way you handled the Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/UI_spoofing on my userpage a few years back.--NWA.Rep (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Martinevans123[edit]

If an editor creates multiple accounts to edit articles in different subject areas, not realising that this is in breach of WP:SOCK, how should he or she be dealt with? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About six hours left for voting? Is my question worthy of your attention? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how the socks were used. Anyone could claim that he doesn't know WP:SOCK. If the newbie did not use the sock maliciously (ie. circumventing 3RR, creating a crowd atmosphere, fake consensus, circumventing blocks, etc) then the community might be inclined to be more lenient. But if these other violations are committed, he should be blocked indefinitely.--NWA.Rep (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for your reply. What if the editor concerned was of some years of good-standing, but had made no "malicious violations" whatsoever? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/NWA.Rep/Questions&oldid=465164582"