Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for FloNight

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?


 * Thanks, good first question for me on a subject near an dear to my heart. I've been following the Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience case closely and made comments. On Wikipedia the term neutral point of view has an important specific meaning that is based on official policy. NPOV says that all significant point of view must be presented fairly and without bias if they have been published by a reliable source. SPOV is slightly different but is compatible with Wikipedia NPOV. SPOV reports the consensus of the scientific community. It does not represent all significant points of view related to a topic. This passage from Neutral point of view/FAQ explains how SPOV is used on Wikipedia science and pseudoscience topics, "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories."


 * The conflict occurs if an article asserts that a scientific view is correct because NPOV requires it "not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one." Instead Wikipedia articles allow each reader to form their own opinions about the truth of the ideas presented. (Let me know if you want any more detail.) FloNight 23:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from maclean

 * 1) Do you have dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Mediation Committee, Mediation Cabal, Third opinion, Requests for comment, or Association of Members' Advocates? In your candidate statement you noted that you are an Arbitration Committee Clerk, what do you do there? Why are you an Arbitration Committee Clerk?
 * I enjoy mediating disputes on Wikipeia and have some successful outcomes though not in any of the official areas you mention. I subscribe to the it is darkest before dawn theory and try to catch users that are so upset and frustrated that they are willing to look for help getting out of the messy situation. (I'd prefer not to provide diff publicly because it might embarrass some users. Can provide privately on request.) Professionally, I have training on how to deal with people during times that they are upset and I find the same skills useful to calm down users and get them to work towards resolving their differences.
 * The officail description of the duties of Arbitration Committee Clerk is found here. Arbitration Committee/Clerks Basically it is clerical work. Opening and closing cases, and removing Requests for arbitration that are rejected are the most common tasks. We also explain the process to parties and other interested users, and facilitate communication between the parties and the Arbitrator Committee as needed. We do not make decisions about cases. FloNight 00:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Why are you an Arbitration Committee Clerk?
 * In August the most active Arbitration Clerk at the time went on holiday and there was a shortage of clerks available to perform the duties. I noticed and volunteered to help out. I enjoyed the work and stayed on after he returned. FloNight 00:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Will you continue as a clerk if not successful with the Arbitration Committee?
 * Yes. I enjoy the arbitration clerk tasks and plan to continue if not elected. FloNight 23:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo
1. Express in a short paragraph, using any particular issue/incident that you feel strongly about (or lack thereof) in the past, on why editors must understand the importance of the ArbCom elections and making wise, informed decisions when they vote.
 * My experience with the Request for arbitration (as a party in an arbitration case and as a participant on Workshop pages) is positive largely due to the high caliber Wikipedians that we have serving on the Arbitration Committee. I have confidence that the committee is looking out for the overall interest of the community. I believe that the community and Jimbo have made wise choices in the past.


 * The larger the community becomes, the harder it will be for users to know the candidates well enough to vote on them based on their own first hand experience. For this reason I think that it is important for this pre-election and the election phase to be as interactive as possible with users asking questions and candidates responding to provide this beneficial information.

2. Imagine. Say Jimbo grants you the authority to make, or abolish one policy with immediate and permanent effect, assuming no other limitations, no questions asked. What would that be?
 * I've been helping baby along a new policy Community sanction. It is likely not being used to its full potential yet being very new and unknown to my users. I think that it is going to be beneficial to the Community by letting the community deal with many of the more straightforward cases that are in front of AC now. This should help reduce the load on AC and speed up the process for the cases still needing the involvement of the Committee.

3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive checkuser and oversight privileges. Have you read and understood foundation policies regulating these privileges, and able to help out fellow Wikipedians on avenues (e.g. WP:RFCU) in a timely manner should you be granted either or both of them?
 * Yes, I have read the policies and have made requests for both in the past. I've been lucky and never had a problem finding someone to do them for me. I know over the course of the past year some users had problems getting quick results to their requests. If I am elected I would be happy to make myself available to perform these tasks as needed and would likely request privileges for them.

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?
 * For the Arbitration Committee to be useful to the community it must have it's respect and confidence. The presence of these three characteristics; integrity, accountability, and transparency, help give ArbCom confidence in the eyes of the community.


 * Integrity for purposes of RFAr means that an Arbitrator will deal with users in a honest manner, making a sincere effort to listen to user evidence and make a decision based on the facts presented in the case.


 * By custom and tradition as well as policy, the Arbitration Committee is accountable to the community, Jimbo, and Wikimedia Foundation board.


 * Transparency is specifically addressed in the Arbitration Committee policy. Per policy I want to note that I do have one additional user account that I have never used. I will reveal the name of the user account per policy if elected. I agree that most evidence should be taken in public with the exception of information that may cause harm to individuals or the Wikipedia. Deliberations are often held privately, but Arbitrators will make detailed rationale for all their decisions related to cases public. FloNight 17:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

5. Humour, a tradition of Wikipedian culture, has seen through several controversies in recent history. This is including but not limited to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, parody policies/essays, April Fools' Day, whole userpages, userboxes... Do you think that they are all just harmless fun, or that they are all nonsense that must go?
 * All of the items you mention can be harmless fun or problems depending on the situation. I believe in a "whistle while you work" environment. FYI, I'm in the category Rouge admins, a ongoing gag. These things are a great way to cope with Wikistress. --FloNight 03:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Giano
Members of the current Arbcom were recently openly discussing people involved in an Arbcom case on the IRC Admin's channel. What are your views on that, and  on Arbcom confidentiality. Giano 17:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The original purpose of the IRC Admins channel was to provide a place for Jimbo and Danny to quickly find clueful users to help with sensitive content issues that could not be easily discussed on Site. I think this remains a main focus of the IRC channel though it can get social at times since a large number of Wikipedians are gathered there. Arbitration member that use the channel need to take care and not reveal any confidential information. --FloNight 03:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What subjects do you, and would you, see fit to discuss on the IRC Admin channel? Why would you not discuss them On-Wiki? Giano 18:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not use IRC administrators channel or other IRC channels for Wikipedia concerns often. I primarily use either for something that needs quick action or discretion. Some examples: a) Asking an Arbitrator a clerical question about opening or closing a case. b) Finding someone to do an Oversight and Check User c) Getting other opinions about a legal threat or defamation. d) An OTRS or Office related incident. FloNight 02:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Badbilltucker
Thank you for volunteering to take on this task, and for putting yourself through having to answer these questions. For what it's worth, these particular questions are going to all the candidates.

1. I've noticed that a total of thriteen people have resigned from the committee, and that there is currently one vacancy open in one of the tranches. Having members of the committee resign sometime during their term could create problems somewhere down the road. What do you think are the odds that you yourself might consider resigning during the course of your term, and what if any circumstances can you envision that might cause you to resign? Also, do you think that possibly negative feelings from others arising as a result of a decision you made could ever be likely to be cause for your own resignation?
 * I will be married for 30 years this June so I know how to stick with something!! I can not think of any reason that I will resign from the position. My real life experience dealing with difficult people in difficult situations prepares me for the negative feedback that is part of the ArbCom's job.

2. There may well arise cases where a dispute based on the inclusion of information whose accuracy is currently a point of seemingly reasonable controversy, possibly even bitter controversy, in that field of study. Should you encounter a case dealing with such information, and few if any of your colleagues on the committee were knowledgeable enough in the field for them to be people whose judgement in this matter could be completely relied upon, how do you think you would handle it?
 * The Arbitration Committee has great latitude in researching the cases. Depending on the exact situation, I would find a resource either on or off the committee to help me understand the evidence. Using reliable sources is key in this situation. Then I would make sure the Finding of facts in the case are factually correct per onsite diffs and reliable sources in the field of study. FloNight 03:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Newyorkbrad
Welcome to the hustings! Newyorkbrad 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) What can be done to reduce delays in the arbitration process?
 * A main purpose of arbitration is to find remedies for disruptive behavior that can not be settled by the community making pace an important factor. The period of time that the Arbitration Committee takes to clear cases is a measurable quality standard. Ideally ArbCom's policy and procedures will allow for evidence to be fully presented and cases thoroughly researched by arbitrators in a time frame that satisfies the need of the community. The speed of cases can be addressed in several ways:
 * a) By encouraging the use of more community sanctions, a practice I support, have used and helped promote to official policy.
 * b) Amending procedure for accepting new arbitration requests. This recently changed from 4 accept votes to 4 net accept votes and needs to be evaluated to see if it is achieving desired effect.
 * c) Better assisting parties and other interested users in providing evidence.
 * d) More arbitrators researching cases and writing proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. This is one place where I can make a difference since I have plenty of free time to assist this way.
 * 1) If elected, do you anticipate participating in the actual drafting of the ArbCom decisions? If so, do you have any writing experience that would be directly relevant to this task?
 * Yes, I plan to help research and write the proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. In terms of Wikipedia RFArb, I have experience writing proposals on the workshop pages of arbitration cases. In several arbitration cases the proposals I made on workshop pages or similar ones have been used by the Arbitrator writing the case proposals. Professionally I have experience making assessments, implementing a plan of action, and evaluating the results for individuals and both small and large groups. Additionally, I have researched problems, and then written policies and protocols.  These skills are similar to the skills needed to perform the tasks of ArbCom.
 * 1) Do you believe your experience as a Clerk for ArbCom over the past couple of months has given you insight into how the Committee works, what is good about the procedures and what might be improved in some way?
 * Yes, I think helping out as an Arbitration Committee Clerk has given me more insight into the working of ArbCom. Overall the policies and process are sound. Several particular issues that could be better addressed come to mind. One issue, discussed in the past and still needs further discussion, deals with better delineation of which arbitrators are going to research and vote on a particular case. There are times when acting as Clerk I felt that the outcome would be different if more Arbitrators participated in a case. This happened when several Arbitrators were away or inactive and others were recused. The unevenness of this result needs to be handled better I think. The other issue deals with voting on motions and clarifications discussions in prior RFArb. I think that ArbCom needs a better way of communicating to the prior parties and interested others that these issues are being discussed. There is no system in place to notify them now. This sometimes causes the discussion to be incomplete or last longer than might happen otherwise, and the motions votes to not be as well understood and supported by as broad a group in the community as possible. FloNight 22:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from xaosflux

 * 1) As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. (Question from —  xaosflux  Talk 20:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The main issue here relates to making sure that these functions are the available as needed while limiting their use to a select group of users that can be trusted with the responsibility. The growth in size of Wikipedia-en will likely result in the need for more users with these permissions. An important matter related to this concerns whether these privileges should be concentrated within the same small group of trusted users that are current or former members of ArbCom and/or Bureaucrats, or should these privileges be spread more diffusely among the community. Also, should these be permanent or removed and given to other users if not used regularly? Currently, I support giving the privileges to current and former Arbitrators and current Bureaucrats that have the interest and time to perform the duties after discussion by ArbCom. Other experienced users should also be able to make an argument for the privileges. In particular, more editors very active as Mediators on Mediation Committee may benefit since they frequently are the first to see problems. Another groups might be a select group of editors that are active in answering OTRS queries and Office related matters. I think that users with the privileges should be encouraged to voluntarily return them if they are not being used with any frequency. If the circumstances change and the need arises in the future for there use, they can easily be returned. FloNight 23:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from AnonEMouse
Warning: Most of these are intended to be tough. Answering them properly will be hard. I don't expect anyone to actually withdraw themselves from nomination rather than answer these, but I do expect at least some to seriously think about it!

The one consolation is that your competitors for the positions will be asked them too. Notice that there are about one thousand admins, and about a dozen arbcom members, so the process to become an arbcom member may be expected to be one hundred times harder. (Bonus question - do you think I hit that difficulty standard?) :-)


 * 1) A current Arbcom case, Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is  hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?
 * I have been following the case you mention and the Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability case which also concerns this issue and I have given the question quite a bit of thought before your question. This is my take on the situation:
 * Currently the Arbitration Committee endorses policy in several ways. By using a new policy or guideline, the Arbitration committee puts their stamp of approval on it. A good example of this is Biographies of living persons. Initially there were some questions about this policy (it actually started as a guideline) by some members of the community. I think that the Committee's frequent use of the policy helped validate it in the community and now it is widely accepted and cited.
 * Additionally, I think that Jimbo and the Wikipedia community have given the Arbitration Committee wide latitude to settle disputes that are damaging to Wikipedia. In theory this means that any type of dispute can be addressed by the Committee in order to bring resolution to a situation that must have resolution. By this I mean that the level of disturbance needs to be weighed and action taken if warranted. If not acting on a dispute allows a problem to fester and cause greater damage then the Arbitration Committee should act. In these two particular cases so far I have not seen evidence that the Committee needs to intervene in a way that will in fact make policy. In the Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability and  Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy cases I am not convinced that the finding of facts that describe the dispute need to establish new policy. Instead they can remain focused on the way that users interact to form policy, leaving the final decision up to others. FloNight 23:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?
 * Yes, Arbitration Committee should only accept cases that can not be settled by the community. Therefore they have the authority to handle any case they accept as needed to end the disruption. As I stated above, I think that Jimbo and the Wikipedia community have given the Arbitration Committee wide latitude to settle disputes that are damaging to Wikipedia. In theory this means that any type of dispute can be addressed by the Committee in order to bring resolution to a situation that must have resolution. If a case needs this type of intervention by ArbCom, than they have the authority. But, the Requests_for_arbitration/Giano did not need this type of intervention and the dispute was resolved without it. So far ArbCom has been conservative about wading into content issues and issues involving making policy. If I am elected to Arbitration Committee I will continue this trend and only go there if absolutely necessary. FloNight 01:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?
 * 2) If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.
 * (Answer to 3 & 4 together) Absolutely agree that a user's service to Wikipedia is important tool to use when evaluating user conduct and making determinations about their future as participants on the project. This concept is fundamental to every case, really. ArbCom weighs the harm that a user is doing to Wikipedia to the benefit that they are bringing to the project. The Arbitration committee does not act unless other users make a Requests for arbitration. It must also show that attempts at resolving the dispute in another venue have been tried and failed or that they are not possible due to the nature of the dispute. This system artificially sets up the altercation as a conflict between users, when in reality often it is best viewed as an editor engaged in a dispute with the community's policy.
 * If an Arbitration case is viewed as I stated above, than there is no need to pit different groups of users against each other, and in fact doing so would cause more harm than good by increasing the tension between the different types of editors that you identified. FloNight 02:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)
 * I disagree with several of the findings of fact and remedies in this case. Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Proposed decision I feel limiting the blocks time to 1 week was not wise based on the users prior history. In reality this limits the ability of the community to deal with the editor if a longer block is justified without causing more disruption due to user complaints that Arb case not being followed. It subjects the community to more disruption. Doing 4 blocks of one week each is not the same as an one 4 week block due to the extra disruption that must occur to trigger each block.
 * I also think that the case went off the tracks when it ended up cautioning User:Jim62sch without him being a party to the case, not offering any evidence in the case, not making any comment on the workshop page, and was not notified by the Arbitration Committee of the proposed finding of facts or remedies . --FloNight 23:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?
 * In the broadest sense I think that it can be acceptable either way; currently I think that is right for this Arbitration Committee because it is functioning all right with this configuration, but in the future it will be wrong for the next Arbitration Committee since so many candidates have expressed an opinion that they want to research and write decisions. As I stated in Questions from Newyorkbrad, if elected I plan to research and write decisions to help the Arbitration Committee be more effective. FloNight 03:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom?
 * I think it is a decision for the community to make if a particular user is qualified to help the community by serving on ArbCom. There are several experienced, non-admins that I know and would vote for if they run. I do not see it as a group that needs representation as much as different individuals bring different skills and knowledge that would be beneficial to the position. The few issues, such as not being able to see deleted edits, are easily overcome. I see the point about them not having the communities trust as less import because they would have it if they were elected. :-) FloNight 03:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from SB_Johnny
A good wikifriend of mine strongly believes in you, so I'd like to ask a few more generalized questions. They're admittedly softballs, but your answers would be enlightening (at least to me):


 * 1) Obviously the very existence of arbcom is an archetype token of a "necessary evil", and taking an issue to arbcom must always be considered only as a last resort. In your opinion, are there any weak links in the dispute resolution process that could be strengthened in order to make arbitration requests even rarer than they already are?
 * Mediation is a part of the dispute resolution process that needs more support. Often, I fear it is something that is hurried past on the way to Requests for arbitration. It is misunderstood about what Arbitration can accomplish compared to Mediation. Each has a place and needs to be used appropriately. User conduct Requests for comment often end by identifying problems but no method to implement a good solution. Hopefully the new Community sanction will help with this problem. FloNight 02:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Assuming that any weak links you see in the dispute resolution process might be around for a while, do you think the committee could do a better job of following up on refused requests, to make sure that they're discussed in a more appropriate forum?
 * You are correct that currently a case gets no follow up once a case is rejected as a content dispute or because other methods of dispute have not been tried. Having a group of editors follow up on these rejected cases might be helpful in some situations. FloNight 02:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) As an arbitrator, you'll need to be willing to first be understanding without necessarily forgiving, and then later to forgive without forgetting. This can be a difficult path to walk, since personal feelings will almost certainly be roused in one direction or the other. How would you approach this on a good day (i.e., in a way you'll take pride in after the fact), and will you consider recusing yourself on a bad day?
 * I think that I will be able to handle all that goes with the duties of the Arbitration Committee. I have experience working in high stress jobs and know how to deal with difficult people and difficult situations. I will use my best judgment and recuse from cases when I feel that I can not judge the case fairly. FloNight 02:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 15:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from Dakota
If elected to the Arbitration Committee will you continue active editing? Will you not lose interest in contributing to articles. Will you be available to any users who seek your help or advice.

-- Dakota 05:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes! Yes! and Yes! If I need to cut back on a current activity to make more time for ArbCom, I will cut back on admin duties. I think that I am easily approachable and will make myself available to answer questions about ArbCom during and after a case. Suggestions from users are welcome. I'm used to being evaluated frequently in my previous employment. FloNight 01:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Bhadani
I wish you all the best! I have few doubts, and would request you to kindly clarify the same.


 * You opposed a particular RfA .:And, thereafter you changed this to neutral: &


 * While I respect rights of all editors to have opinions on RfAs, in the context of your candidature for the ArbCom, I have a pointed query: do you feel that members of the ArbCom have to form opinions based only on the evidences (or the so called evidences) furnished without applying their minds and without taking into account the totality of the contributions of an editor? Further, how did you conclude that this particular user did not assume good faith? What made you feel and perhaps voice opinion obliquely in an assertive tone that that user’s good faith was suspect vis-à-vis your own good faith while recording your advice to that user? Do you feel that whosoever raises and uses WP:AGF first during talks and discussion acquires a lien on the good faith? Or, does it depends, in your opinion, on the hierarchy where the user may be placed: an IP the least, a registered user a bit better, an administrator still better, and an ArbCom member better than an administrator and so on?
 * Arbitration Committee members should look at the totality of the evidence presented plus any other information that will help them make a good decision. Assume good faith is bedrock principle on Wikipedia. It is intended to keep users focused on discussing content or issues and not focusing on the conduct of other editors. Using our real example the discussion about the suitability of an feature article should focus on the article itself and not the editors that wrote it. IMO, the discussion got off track and the conduct of editors was discussed. That is the reason that I cautioned RFA candidate to remember to assume good faith.
 * In some situations the assume good faith rule is waived. Request for adminship and Requests for arbitration are two places on Wikipedia that user conduct is evaluated and possible problem behavior is discussed. It needs to be done in the context of actual evidence presented. Often during content disputes and other conflicts on Wikipedia all parties in a situation stop AGF. That is the reason that the conflict escalates.
 * I do not feel that anyone has a lien on good faith, rather in some situations the conduct of the editor is evaluated and it is appropriate to raise issues and concerns. Users that are higher in Wikipedia hierarchy (like Arbitrators) have more responsibility toward the project so they should be held to higher standards of user conduct. This makes it more appropriate for editors to criticize their actions. It is normal for issues to arise that will cause some editors to have prolonged intense discussion of about their dissatisfaction with a particular person or issue. I do not think in these cases this shows a lack of assuming good faith per Wikipedia policy. --FloNight 00:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you believe that the ArbCom members should stop contributing to the main spaces and confine their activities to the resolution of disputes only? In case, your answer is No, please enlighten me on how would you continue to enrich the main space after being elected as a member of the ArbCom? Although you have explained your position by telling Yes, Yes, Yes to a similar query above, I am requesting you to kindly elaborate the exact steps that you propose to take to continue to be active as a contributor to the main space. Please also share with the community the names of the ArbCom members who are most active and who are least active in main spaces in your assessment. I request you to please share the names to understand the level which you feel are acceptable. I do understand that the acceptable level would differ from editor to editor.
 * A member of the Arbitration Committee has been given the extra responsibility of helping resolve disputes. For this reason, they will need to shift some of their time emphasis toward arbitration and do less main space editing than other editors. Since I enjoy editing articles, I plan to continue to do so. It gives me a sense of satisfaction that is different from my other activities on Wikipedia. If I am in a hurry and do not have time to prepare something ahead of time, I will click on Random article in the sidebar and work on articles as they come up. I find this fun, really. As to arbitrators level of editing in the main space, I see it changing for different arbitrators at different times depending on RL and what other Wikipedia duties they perform. When I found myself the Arbitration Clerk doing most of the cases, I asked the arbitrators to look for more Clerks because I wanted to spend more time editing articles. Since then we have added one Official Clerk and have more users doing a very good job helping with clerking duties, so I expect my level of article editing to rise. FloNight 01:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you believe that to resolve disputes relating to contents, domain knowledge of the contents are secondary? Thus, for example, a dispute relating to the contents of a particular page may be resolved by reference to the materials available within English Wikipedia? Or, the ArbCom members are expected to make themselves familiar with the issues involved by actually making references to the citations and references available within and outside English Wikipedia?
 * By custom and practice the Arbitration Committee stays away from making decisions about article content unless absolutely necessary. When they do impose remedies it is toward some way for the parties to come to an agreement, rather than for them to actually rule on the content. Sometimes, like in the Requests for arbitration/Highways case, the finding of facts and remedies will address ways to get the parties to come to an agreement by using a process. (see State route naming conventions poll)

Regards. --Bhadani 13:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Beautiful. Splendid indeed! Thanks and regards. --Bhadani 06:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from JzG
Open-mindedness and the ability to revise one's own position in response to new evidence seems to me to be an important factor in considering ArbCom cases. Can you please provide an example of a situation where your initial judgement of a situation turned out to be wrong, and show how you dealt with it? Guy (Help!) 14:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed my stated opinion from oppose to neutral on Requests for adminship/Ambuj.Saxena based on his written response on the talk page, his conduct during the RFA, and the discussion by his supporters. I weighed these comments against those made by the editors that were opposing and changed my position to neutral. I decided that I was putting too much weight on this one recent event compared to his overall edit pattern. It was a close call for me becasue I think the edits made later during the time at Wikipedia are more reflective of a nom's ability to use the tools well. FloNight 02:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Torinir
I'm asking these questions all applicants:

1) How would you handle a situation where an error of judgment has occured, especially if evidence is provided to confirm that the position is incorrect?
 * If I changed my opinion about a case for any reason, I would discuss it with the other arbitrators and  make a motion to change the prior remedies as needed. Depending on the situation a formal or informal apology to involved parties may be needed. FloNight 02:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

2) If a decision of yours, while technically a correct one, would knowingly be unpopular en masse, how would you present your decision?
 * Arbitration remedies are intended to resolve disputes that are causing major problems on Wikipedia and can not be resolved in any other venue. Since the Arbitration Committee is not bound by precedent and most Wikipedia policy is written with ample flexibility, most policy can be ignored if following it rigidly will cause massive disruption. Accordingly, no technically correct remedy must be pressed on the community over the objections of the community. The remedy needs to be popular enough to be voluntarily enforced by admins since admins are not required to enforce policy or Arbitration case sanctions. The Final Decision in an Arbitration case is announced on the pages of interested parties, WP:AN, and the WP:RFAr/AER. Questions about the the process can be put on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration or more more specific questions about Decisions at   Requests for clarification IMO, discussion of opinions is welcome with intense negative views expressed by some portions of the community to be expected on some occasions. FloNight 02:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

3) Place each of these policies/guidelines listed in order of precedence (to you) starting with highest priority. There is really no right or wrong answer. I'm interested in seeing what you would normally look at first when assessing an article.

WP:V WP:BLP WP:NOT WP:NPOV WP:NOR WP:C WP:RS WP:N


 * All of these are important to Wikipedia and depending on the article or situation need to be the priority policy or guideline when evaluation an article. I have placed them in order based on their overall significance to Wikipedia editors.


 * 1.WP:NPOV, first, it is a Wikimedia Foundation policy that is beyond debate. This policy is a large part of what makes Wikipedia be Wikipedia and must be accepted by all editors.
 * 2.WP:C and WP:BLP next. In general I follow 1RR; with two big exceptions being copyright violations and negative unsourced content about biographies of living persons. WP:C also explains about Wikipedia's GFDL license as it relates to both user contributions and reuse.
 * 3.WP:V, WP:NOR are two core editing principles that together with WP:NPOV define the way articles are written.
 * 4.WP:NOT is a good overview of Wikipedia policy and the culture. Reading this is a must to understand Wikipedia.
 * 5.WP:RS and WP:N are both important guidelines that flow from the other policies. They explain in more detail the way that some policies should be implemented. FloNight 02:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical from John Reid

 * Content dispute on Article X. Editor A ignites war with rude comment on User talk:B. New editor B sees this and reacts but A sneaky reverts himself before anybody else notices the instigation. Rude comments on Talk:X. Rude comments between Editors A and B on each other's talk. Admin C blocks A and B for a day. 12 hours later, Admin D sees the sneaky revert and unblocks B and, for good measure, extends A's block to 2 days. Admin C sees the unblock, doesn't understand/agree with the block sum, reblocks B and extends his block to match A's. He comments in good faith on User talk:D.


 * Admin D sees the reblock and reads the comment that reveals C's ignorance, reunblocks B, and leaves message on AN, explaining the sneaky revert. C reblocks again, leaves message on User talk:D complaining of 0WW violation. D replies on User talk:C, explains the sneaky revert, and unblocks both parties. Admin E (up to now uninvolved, stay with me here) comes to User talk:B to follow up on unrelated Article Y discussion; sees B complaining mightily but incoherently about being blocked. E reads through talk on X, A, and B and sees a lot of rudeness, blocks both editors for a day.


 * Editors M, N, P, and Q, friends or partisans of A and B, object loudly on talk to every turn of events; C blocks some of them, D blocks others. Meanwhile, C and D are trading insults on talk and Admin F finally steps in and blocks them for a week. Admin G unblocks everybody. Admin H discusses the situation offwiki with Admins J and K; H posts to AN with the stated intent to block all involved parties for 24 hours for violations of CIVIL and NPA. J and K endorse; H implements the blocks, which expire a day later. The case winds up at ArbCom.


 * I've already written my answer in detail, encrypted it, and uploaded it to a userpage. I'll give you a week to think about this case before revealing my solutions. 08:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not see an Arbitration Committee Case here. No single user has taken any action that requires action from the Arbitration Committee. While there are concerns (admins C and D especially) unless there is more to the story, I do not think this needs to jump past the normal dispute resolution process. There have been no attempts at mediation between any of the parties and no User Conduct RFC for editors or administrators. At this point no one is blocked or has a ban that needs to be reviewed. If I was on ArbCom, I would reject the case asking the users to use Mediation (all involved editors/admin), User Conduct RFC (admin for C and D), Article RFC (article X), and Article Protection (Article X) as needed to settle the dispute. FloNight 01:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Sugaar
How would you deal with abuse of authority by administrators, meaning by this application of blocks as punitive measures and use of blocks in unclear PA cases, as per WP:BLOCK. Would you protect the sysop no matter what or would you defend policy above all? In other words, what do you consider more important: strict discipline or strict application of policy? Thanks.
 * If an administrator has a pattern of not following policy and abusing their admin tools in a manner that harms Wikipedia, then ArbCom needs to intervene with remedies that change the admin's harmful actions. This might be as minor as an official caution or as serious as desyopping depending on the circumstances. FloNight 01:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from User:Balla Laika
Wikipedia Board members as well as stewards are now required to make their real names known. Additionally, almost all current ArbComm members either use their real name as their userid or have allowed their real names to become known which adds to the transparency and accountability of the ArbComm. Are you willing to reveal your real name? Balla Laika 23:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I sign all my emails with my real name, Sydney Poore, in addition to my Wikipedia account user name for this reason. Poore5 is another name I'm associated with on line. I'm likely to continue to use FloNight on site because most users are most familiar with that name. FloNight 01:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Carcharoth

 * I presume that if elected to the Arbitration Committee you will step down as an Arbitration Committee clerk (I have tried, and failed to find something specifying this in the material about ArbCom and about ArbCom clerks). Can you confirm this?
 * Yes, and also see the following questions about my clerking for ArbCom: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for FloNight, Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for FloNight (No. 3) FloNight 23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If elected to the Arbitration Committee, you could be involved in appointing Arbitration Committee Clerks, as this is one of the roles of the Arbitration Committee. Will your experience as an Arbitration Committee clerk be an advantage or disadvantage if you are involved in appointing future clerks?
 * An advantage. It has been my pleasure to help several users learn the Arbitration Committee Clerking tasks and work with other Clerks and Arbitrators to tweak the our protocols. FloNight 23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Carcharoth 17:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Three questions from Carcharoth
These are copies of questions initially asked by John Reid.

FloNight 23:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Jossi
Some questions for you, and good luck with your nomination, FloNight:

1. Do you believe that as Wikipedia continues to grows in significance and substance, we will need to assert restrictions based on value judgments made by the ArbCom about the ability of users to edit without bias?
 * IMO, our current guideline, WP:COI speaks to this on some level. If someone is getting a personal benefit from editing, it is likely that they will be judged at fault sooner than other editors based on the thinking behind this guideline. At this time I think our current restriction coming from this policy is enough. --FloNight 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Do you believe that the current WP content policies, the editing process, and the strength of the community, are sufficient to address these issues in order to reduce bias in articles? If this is not your view, what should be modified in the policy of WP:AFG, and the current Wikipedia motto Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?
 * Yes, I think our current policies, the editing process, the community, and ArbCom are sufficient to address bias in articles? Speeding up the process is perhaps the main way that article bias can be addressed. --FloNight 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

3. In a recent wikiEN-I en posting (8/19/2006), Jimmy Wales wrote:

"'Most of us do care passionately about the ethics of what we are doing, and how it affects people. Indeed, for most of us, it is part of the very fabric of the reasons we participate. We are human beings, trying to do something good, not automatons puking out soulless 'content' [...] we are good, we are ethical, we are trying to produce something important in the world that matters to the world, and we want to do it the right way.'"

3a. Are you in agreement with that statement?
 * I am repeatedly impressed by the ethical statements that Jimbo (Jimmy Wales) makes. I agree with this statement and find it inspirational. --FloNight 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

3b. If you do, what would you do as an ArbCom member to bring that understanding to bear in our project?
 * Volunteering to help Wikipedia is important work. Do no harm is an important life long beleif. I will follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines in a manner that causes the least harm to every person. I will deal with users in a honest manner, making a sincere effort to listen to user evidence and make a decision based on the facts presented in the case. When needed I will make tough decisions that might be unpopular. FloNight 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Anomo
1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not at this time. Unless Brad Patrick (Legal advisor to Wikimedia) advices of the need to change our policy I trust the community to make a good judgment about the user. FloNight 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2. I have read on several websites (they even gave links to block logs) of Wikipedia admins who do things like indefinitely blocking accounts who have not edited for months, there was no CheckUser anything, no reports, and the admin didn't give any reason, just put personal attacks as the block reason (e.g. saying "troll"). Basically such cases seem done beyond punative, but just out of bullying. I saw at least ten of these, but so far I can only find one here. I don't feel like digging for hours, as I just want to ask your opinion of whether you support or oppose such admin activity because it's clear most support it. Anomo 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends on the situation. As an Arbitrator I would look at the evidence in a particular case before making a decision. In general, if it is a banned user that is absolutely not welcome to edit Wikipedia, all their user accounts need to be blocked when found. I have done this myself many times. If it is a problem user that might reform then blocking a dormant account might not be helpful. I do not think that indef blocking an account of an disruptive user is ever totally wrong. A block log message needs to be left that clearly explains the reason for the block. If there is a question it is appropriate to ask the blocking admin to explain. Most admins are happy to answer this type of question and do so often. --FloNight 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

3. What is your view on the current policy often called "kicking them while they're down" of deleting the user and talk pages of people who are blocked? Anomo 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, it depends on the situation. As a general rule, a user that is not continuing to be disruptive should be able to edit and keep user and talk pages. I personally think that we need to give the user a chance to blow off some steam before making the judgment. At times, if the user is causing disruption then the pages may need to be deleted. --FloNight 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is your view on the practice on Wikipedia where a person blanks out text on talk pages because the text mentioned something wrong the person did or defeated them in an argument? The text blanked usually has no reason given. When there is a reason given, it's only a fake reason. In rare cases, the text is not blanked, but the entire talk page is archived including discussions hours old, blanking it out. Anomo 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not familiar with this practice. As a general rule users can control their talk page. Archiving is strongly encouraged but not required. The edits will be in the history of the talk page so they are not really gone. As an Arbitrator I would closely examine a page's history to look for complete evidence FloNight 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have seen where there is heated debate and someone they will archve the entire talk page of an article, including discussions hours old (sometimes minutes), just say archiving and the talk page is empty. This seems to be growing in popularity. What is your view on it? Anomo 03:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless it concerns a privacy, BLP, legal threat, copyright violation, defamation issues, Article talk pages should not be prematurely archieved. As an arbitrator I would closely examine the history of articles and talk pages when I was looking at evidence in a case. This typed of premature archieving would be noted. --FloNight 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

5. What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them? Anomo 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Depend on the situation. Usually, a user should be able to communicate with the community in this limited way. If the comments are disruptive then protecting the page may be needed. --FloNight 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Why do you feel in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has always sided with the admins?
 * I do not think that is true. In some instances editors end up with no finding or remedies against them and admins are cautioned or sanctioned. Most often it is a mixed lot with both groups having remedies against them. --FloNight 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Anomo 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Dfrg.msc
In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.m s c 1. 2 . Editor Review 23:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have an abundance of on site and off site experience dealing with tough issues that need thoughtful consideration, including a juror in 3 real life jury trials. --FloNight 03:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting in the elections
Hello, the ArbCom elections are coming up very soon and I was wondering if you would give your public assurance not to vote or comment on other candidates. I think this will help keep friction to a minimum. Imagine how ugly it would be if two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other both ended up sitting on the ArbCom together. I think, in the best interests of decorum, these kind of conflict of interest issues should be avoided. Do you agree? -- Cyde Weys 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I made the decision not to vote oppose for any nom in this election since I feel that it may add tension between members of the arbitration committee. FloNight 03:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from DVD R W
Maybe this is more of an essay prompt than a question but I was wondering if you would like to write here about any issues from nursing or health policy, I could ask about specific issues but would rather hear what you think of. DVD+ R/W 03:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My first idea when reading your question relates to the amazing way that Wikipedia allows people from all around the world to read and edit articles about health and health policy. For certain, Wikipedia has great potential to improve the health of reader by giving them access to knowledge, particularity about health and health care.


 * Wikipedia content policy, Neutral point of view, No original research, Verifiability with Wikipedia user conduct policy Assume good faith, Civility, and No personal attacks promote an environment that is conducive for collaborating with editors from around the word.


 * Occasionally, editors will have disagreements when writing about health and health care. The dispute resolution process helps settle disputes and return articles to collaborative editing. As a last step the Arbitration Committee may have to make an official decision. Several health topics are prone to edit wars. This can be due to differences between cultures. Or difference in opinions held by the general population and health care providers. Examples of arbitration cases on this topic are: Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others and  Requests for arbitration/Terryeo FloNight 02:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Candidate Questions
1. As concisely as possible, please explain how you would continue with your stated commitment to the ArbCom process as an ordinary editor, should you NOT be "elected". Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.


 * My reasons for this question are three-fold.


 * First, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's a powerful statement that has many meanings. It means that, among other things, any user has the power to do pretty much anything, should they wish it. I submit my own user contributions as evidence.
 * Second, one thing that's a constant is Wikipedia's GNU License. As an online-encyclopedia, the history of everything, every edit, every comment, every misdeed, every injury, and every achievement are readily available to anyone who wish to look at it. All they need is a computer, frankly, and they can dig away.
 * The third is merely a perception. Power is great, but when the entire history of your actions are utterly transparent, and anyone can do virtually anything on their first day here, it's really just a big illusion. I further submit that the more "power" you think you have, the more you have to "lose". You also have to more "work" and have less "fun".


 * I will continue as an Arbitration Committee Clerk if I am not elected. Also I will continue to make comments on the workshop pages of RFAr. --FloNight 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

2. What do you think about this "election"? What do you think about your fellow "candidates"? What do you think about "campaign banners" on an online, open-source encyclopedia? What do you think about your own "campaign"? Please answer as concisely as possible, preferably in 100 words or less. For reference, please see this: [WP:Wikipedia is not a Democracy]]?
 * The election has been interesting so far. I have been pleased by the willingness of the some voters to discuss their oppose votes with me and reconsider. It is nice to see that so many users volunteer for this job. So far the election has been a good experience for me. FloNight 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

3. What, specifically have you done wrong in the past as an editor, community member, administrator, and human being trying to create a world-wide online open source encyclopedia on Wikipedia? For reference, see my own user contributions. Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.


 * Voting against User:Glen S for administrator on his RFA was a mistake. I debated with myself several times about changing it to neutral and never did because I found a few images that were not quite accurately licensed or used on Wikipedia. Glen S was promoted to admin and seems to be doing a good job. I'm sorry that I made this error in judgment although it was done in good faith on my part. FloNight 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Do you apologize for your actions, and who are you apologising to, specifically? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.
 * See above answer for an example of an apology of sorts. FloNight 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Hypothetically, how would you deal with an explosion of editors and users behaving very badly because Wikipedia has just aquired a bigger "stick". For reference please see Soft Power.
 * I would be open to evaluating the reason behind this explosion of editors behaving badly if there was sufficient evidence to compel a case. FloNight 02:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

6. What, exactly do you want do on Wikipedia? Why did you come here, and why did you stay for more than a minute? What's fun for you here? What makes you happy here? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.
 * I do a variety of things on Wikipedia. I'm an article editor, an admin, an Arbitration Committee, and of course now a nom for a seat on the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 02:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Thesmothete 18:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems that you have substantial support to be on the ArbCom, however, I notice that to the extent there is concern about your candidacy, it focuses mainly on the question of your ability to be fair and impartial. In particular, it has been suggested that you might not be fair and impartial when friends or wikifriends of yours are involved. In light of this, I wonder if you would like to offer any further details, information or clarification on: 1) how you would approach deciding whether or when to recuse yourself from a case, and 2) how you would ensure fairness and impartiality in circumstances where you have a professional, collegial, or personal relationship with a party in a dispute and had not recused yourself. Thank you for your consideration of this question. Thesmothete 18:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Arbitration Committee has guidelines for who takes part in deciding cases. I plan to follow those guidelines which call for self assessment of conflicts of interest and also listening to any concerns expressed by others. Also, I will recuse myself from any case where I have taken significant action as an administrator. With the increase in number of arbitrators after this election, I see no reason for any arbitrator to hear a case where minor conflicts of interest exist. If over time the situation changes and there is a shortge of arbitrators, then I will reevaluate the situation.


 * I would like to point out that no significant issues about conflict of interest were ever raised by outside interests since I have been in my position as Arbitration Committee Clerk. Likely this is because I have recused myself ahead of parties requests and notified them of it on their talk pages. Since this has been successful, I plan to continue to follow this way of handling these situations. FloNight 12:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Zoe
What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not followed this closely for the past few days so I need to review the comments left on various talk pages. In the mean time this answer addresses my general thinking about ArbCom decisons.  I do notice that ArbCom is following normal policy and custom by reviewing the comments of some members of the community before closing the case. . I think that is wise. I support calm discussion as a way to reach agreement. FloNight 15:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from CJCurrie

 * You have identified yourself as a proponent of community sanctions. I have some concerns about the practical application of this policy.  Specifically, I worry that it may be possible for groups of like-minded administrators to misuse the policy, and mete out dubious punishments against editors with whom they are engaged in content disputes.

What safeguards would you recommend against such potential abuse? Would you support a policy which allows a set number of administrators to automatically overturn a community sanction, if they believe it was misapplied? CJCurrie 00:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you believe arbitrators should recuse themselves from Checkuser cases if they have a history of working in collaboration with the complainant? CJCurrie 02:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)