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

Ask away...

Questions from Fys

 * 1) I will be asking the same three questions to every candidate. 'Arbitration' is a process of dispute resolution. If the parties to an arbitration, after it has gone to the committee, manage to resolve the dispute or any part of it themselves, would you continue the case or that part of it? If so, why, and if not, why not? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 18:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) What role do you believe private discussions between the parties and members of the committee should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 18:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Take a look at Probation. Under what circumstances should users who have not had any restrictions on their editing imposed, be removed from probation? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 18:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

--Improv 21:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Arbitration can occur purely between two or more parties, but more often it involves behaviour that's problematic for the community at large. If there is good reason to believe the problematic behaviour will continue, then it would not be appropriate to stop the case. At any point, if it looks like the problem has become managable without arbitration, it would probably be a good idea to close the case.
 * 2) I don't like the idea of private discussions of this sort - it has several problems:
 * 3) It prevents future arbitrators from knowing of the full history of cases
 * 4) It prevents arbitrators and others who are not privy to that communication from learning how things might be resolved
 * 5) Unless and except where there is a good reason otherwise, transparency (for the sake of trust) is a good thing - privacy undermines that
 * 6) Probation should end when it seems likely that the behaviour that led to the probation will not recur.

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 19:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oversight and checkuser are both potentially legally sensitive positions - my initial inclination would be to go for long-term wikipedians (at least over a year old) who seem particularly trustworthy (unlike adminship, I think that if I have not heard of a potential person, it would be a very significant deterrent). I would probably check with Danny for his thoughts on any specific candidates as well. I'm open to a very careful expansion of use of these roles, but the potential for their misuse is incredibly high, so the bar should be set extraordinarily high for their grant. --Improv 22:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718

 * 1) Improv, you were a mediator and you helped settle disputes through less formal means. In your editing or administering (administrating?) have you ever benefited from the actions of a mediator? Have you ever been involved in an arbitration? Please comment.
 * 2) Your statement offers that you are not different or better than other arbitrators. Would you see yourself as something of an interchangeable part? That you would be more of a consensus builder than a dissenter? (Or am I misinterpreting?)
 * 3) What qualities, were you not running, would you oppose in a candidate for ArbCom?
 * 4) Other candidates have expressed opinions as to whether ArbCom may need to look at cases dealing more with content.  Please share your opinion.

--Improv 22:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I've never entered into mediation as a client, so no. In Arbitration, to my memory all I've ever done is occasionally offered my thoughts to arbcom on arbitration that I wasn't heavily involved in (which I've done a fair number of times over the years).
 * 2) I wouldn't claim to be interchangeable -- every potential (and actual) arbiter has different judgment. I would dissent if, in my judgment, it were appropriate, and would agree when appropriate. The committee as a whole functions both out of agreement and disagreements. I wish I could say something more substantial about your question, but my thoughts on this don't give me an easy answer because the question is orthogonal to how I think.
 * 3) I think a high tolerance for endless drudgery is important - arbiters tend to burn out, and preventing that from happening too quickly is desirable. Trustworthiness is similarly critical.
 * 4) Arbitration should be primarily about behaviour (and occasionally judgment on policy/good-of-the-project), not content disputes. Handling of content is generally covered by policies on the project, and when it is not, straw polls and other kinds of discussion are better means to handle it than ArbCom. Stepping outside the realm of policy/good-of-the-project and behaviour issues, except in the most exceptional cases, would make ArbCom's scope too broad and make it too busy to function. Any given dispute may, of course, enter into content cases, but to the extent it does, ArbCom should try to focus on simply applying policy/good-of-the-project.

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.
 * Arbcom is distinguished from the community at large in its presumed judgment and assent of Jimbo. There are cases where administrators, even long-term ones, strongly disagree on particular issues - it's important to prevent wheel wars and resolve issues in reasoned ways. I think that Arbcom's decisions relating to Kelly Martin and userboxes are a fine example of a difficult situation involving wheel-warring and fierce disagreement between various factions of the community, with many people calling for Kelly's head (figuratively) over actions taken to remove userboxes from the project space. In this case, ArbCom rejected the case, for a number of different reasons, effectively closing the matter (with regards to attacks on Kelly Martin). It would've been possible for this to have gone several other ways - to have accepted the case would've possibly been a boost for rule-centrism (depending on how the arbitration went) and would have defined the role of Arbcom significantly differently than how it is now.

1a. There are a lot of policies out there. Some claim that there are too many policies, therefore ignoring rules. Others think that because there are loopholes in policies that are subjected to gaming or abuse, therefore we should extend them. So, what's really going on?

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 would like to eliminate our acceptance of fair use on the English wikipedia so our content would be entirely free and reusable. I doubt this will happen anytime soon (although if I see the opportunity to push for it, I will). I don't see this as a matter particularly relating to the Arbitration Committee though.

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.

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?
 * Integrity is a prerequisite for the position. Candidates are accountable to Jimbo and to project goals. Transparency in judgement should be practiced except in possible rare circumstances where it does not make sense. Transparency in conversations strictly between Arbcom members is not necessary or always desirable.

4a. What's your take on those who have seriously gone back on their word in their pursuit (or desire) of any important role (or power)? Should they resign? Should they be given a second chance?


 * That depends on the circumstance - sometimes acting or thinking differently than one did earlier is a result of personal growth or discussion. This is to be expected, and isn't inappropriate if something is not a promise but a statement of intent. If someone is being dishonest, in that when they make a statement it is false at that time, then that's unethical and should not be tolerated by polite society. I believe when people are elected or appointed to a position, their judgement and skills are the most important thing for people to look at, not their platform.

5. Are "honourable" long-standing contributions and having the role of being sysop mitigating factors when dealing with chronic cases of incivility and other forms of policy violations?
 * They may affect one's judgement of how likely the policy violations (policy is always at least slightly fluid - longer-term users are often presumed to have the judgement to know when policy should be ignored) are to be done in bad faith, and some extra leeway may be permitted long-term contributors for a time, case depending. If incivility and the like are truly chronic, and the user does not respond to nudging, they may face harsher judgement (even if it takes a bit longer for them to get there) for such behaviour. Being productive does not give one a license to be a WP:DICK. --Improv 07:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

6. 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?
 * Humour should, at most, be a side dish to productive work, and should be limited to certain areas. BJAODN, as a collection of pages specifically labeled as such, accumulated at a fairly slow rate, and as an old tradition, is fine by me. Parody policies should be fine, but I don't think they should be "raw" in the WP namespace - they belong in userspace or as subpages of a collection, so as to avoid possible confusion and avoid such a strong incentive for creation. I don't think April Fools Day should ever be an excuse to vandalise articles, and that it should be dealt with harshly when that happens. I very much dislike userboxes, and feel the "solution" we've come to relating to them is badly flawed. User pages that have some humour are fine by me, as a side dish for a generally useful userpage. I should note that these "ok" and "not ok" judgments run the range from aesthetic tastes to things that I think should be enforcable. I don't imagine these things generally coming up before ArbCom. --Improv 15:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

From Scobell302
Having ran in last year's ArbCom election, have you learned anything from that election that you'll apply to this election? Scobell302 08:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Elections arn't great ways to learn new things. There were some rather good candidates in last year's election, and I'm not disappointed that I wasn't elected (nor would I be if I were not elected this time -- a few people suggested I run, and so I am, but I know what's involved and that it's a soul-sucking position that burns people out, probably moreso than even being a Foundation Board Member or OTRS). --Improv 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

NB. "last year's ArbCom election" refers to the elections that were organised during December 2005, but which took place in January 2006, and are referred to by some as the January 2006 ArbCom elections. Carcharoth 14:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A related set of questions: what has changed since last time? How have you improved as a candidate? Also, the same questions apply to the December 2004 ArbCom elections in which you also ran. See also the related question in its own section below. Carcharoth 14:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have more experience as an editor, OTRS, have had more contact and exchange of views with other long-term Wikipedians, and have also had more life experience and time to reflect on those. It's hard to be much more specific - these things are by nature kind of fluffy. --Improv 19:22, 26 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?
 * 2) *I believe Arbcom should, at its option, have this ability. It's meant to be a formal delegation of Jimbo's role, and Jimbo could rule on these things, thus Arbcom may (unless Jimbo decides otherwise). That said, I have considerable sympathy towards the notion that this is very close to being a legal matter, in which case it would be a good idea to ask the Foundation Legal Counsel for his opinion (although I would trust that Arbcom would have the wisdom to do so). I would hope that situations like this would not often arise.
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) *Arbcom in theory has the power, as Jimbo does.
 * 5)  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?
 * 6) * Ed Poor is a prime example of this kind of case, SPUI another (although I hesitate to group them together here, as the alleged problems with each of their behaviours are very different, as are the type of service they've given to the community). My answer to this is nuanced - if someone does something in good faith with the best aims of the project in mind, even if the project doesn't end up moving the direction they hope, they should just be gently informed of that and nudged harder if they still try to get their way on the matter. If someone acts in bad faith but is still helpful, they should start out being nudged moderately, with substantially harder results if they keep making trouble. For users who don't contribute positively to the project at all, they rarely even make it to ArbCom - a good admin will usually block them with little controversy.
 * Found and linked Ed Poor, don't know which SPUI case you're referring to - Requests for arbitration/Highways, perhaps?.
 * SPUI has been involved in arbitration (and RfCs and ...) a number of times. and  are examples. Nobody's quite sure what to do with him because his editing is very near the borders of acceptability (what side is a matter of judgement) and he's very prolific. He shows little tendency to improve, but the ways in which he is disruptive are not so clearly disruptive enough (or not disruptive enough) that it's easy to decide if he should stay on the project.
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) *Both are needed, but conflicts should not be a comparisons of resumés. A user's past should come into question to help understand what they're doing, and possibly in how hard to nudge them if they need nudging, but by and large we should be talking primarily about conduct, not about some kind of seniority.
 * 3) 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.)
 * 4) *I occasionally post Amici Curae on ArbCom cases - I can provide a recent case where I felt that ArbCom made a mistake both in accepting a case and how they closed it. Recently, Greekwarrior, a long-term problem user who was indef-blocked sometime back, opened a case asking for his ban to be lifted. I suggested ArbCom reject the case, or alternatively that it uphold the perma-block, based on how many chances the user has had in the past to reform, as well as the simple phrasing of the unblock request. In the end, ArbCom changed the block to one year plus probation. I don't think it likely that said user will ever be productive, and if they are, I would like to see them, after a suitable time (at least 6 months) convince a mediator (or some other suitable person) who would then plea for them to ArbCom and then mentor them, blocking them indefinitely again if things go sour. Simple blocks and then probation are inappropriate for users whose abuse is as flagrant as GreekWarrior's.
 * 5) 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?
 * 6) *If Fred doesn't burn out, and if the other Arbitrators are happy with it, I can see no problem with it.
 * 7) 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? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) *I don't agree with the statement that adminship is "no big deal" - I don't think it's a huge deal, but it does mean something to me. I would prefer that arbiters be admins first for a good amount of time, at least partly so they'll understand the tools admins use, partly because admins should and often do have a better understanding of project goals/policy than non-admin users (being more likely to need to argue about them over their times here), and partly because it's unfair to stand for election when one has not taken actions that might be unpopular with people who do not accept policy/project goals when other people standing for election have done so. Being an admin and helping the project often involves things that will make some users upset (from deleting someone's copyvio to blocking marginal users for a time) - being able to defuse such situations or at least being civil while doing what needs to be done is an important mark of character. People who are not admins don't have that dimension to their history. --Improv 07:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) One new one, just for you. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents you deleted an article ongoing a controversial Deletion review that seemed about to rule to keep it. Your actions have been both supported and criticised. Please explain them. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) *I deleted the article because there was no way the article could be anything but a dictionary definition (to those who think otherwise, I challenge them to imagine how they would rework the article to make it anything more like a dicdef). There are a number of people who don't accept our project goals, and when they "vote" en masse to keep things, when they at best belong somewhere else, and provide no arguments addressing the clear facts of the matter, they should be politely reminded that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that neither AfD nor DRV are votes. No matter how many people show up, our project's goals should not be compromised - Wiktionary and Wikipedia are separate projects. Normally, content like this is a no-brainer for transwiki to Wiktionary, but in this case some Wiktionary folks said they didn't want it, hence the deletion. I regret that the deletion didn't stick, and I didn't press it any further, but it's important to note that when the community and democracy sit on one side of the scale, and the project sits on the other, the project should always win. --Improv 18:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from CharlotteWebb

 * The Cookie Caper
 * 04:41, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Curlywurly Squirlies" (rm redir to deleted page)
 * 04:41, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Curlywurly" (rm redir to deleted page)
 * 04:37, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Curly Wurly" (CSD G11: Exists only as a company or product listing)
 * 04:36, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wagon Wheels (Biscuit)" (rm redir to deleted page)
 * 04:36, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) protected Wagon Wheel (biscuit) (Prevent recreation [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
 * 04:36, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wagon Wheel (biscuit)" (Delete, will protect)
 * 04:06, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Vanilla Wafers" (rm redir to deleted page)
 * 04:05, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Nilla Wafer" (rm redir to deleted page)
 * 04:05, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Nilla wafer" (rm redir to deleted page)
 * 04:05, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Nilla wafers" (rm redir to deleted page)
 * 04:05, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Nilla Wafers" (rm redir to deleted page)
 * 04:05, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Milano cookies" (rm redir to deleted page)
 * 04:05, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Milano cookie" (rm link to nonexistant article)
 * 04:02, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Pepperidge Farm" (Talkpage of deleted article)
 * 04:01, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Pepperidge Farm" (CSD G11: Exists only as a company listing)
 * 03:54, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Hobnobs" (Redirection to nothing)
 * 03:54, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Hobnob" (Redirection to nothing)
 * 03:53, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "FAMOUS AMOS" (rm link to nonexistant article)
 * 03:53, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Famous amos" (rm link to nonexistant article)
 * 03:51, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Taxi (candy)" (rm link to nonexistant article)
 * 03:47, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "List of Nestlé brands" (We're not a product directory)
 * 03:47, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Arnott's Biscuits Holdings" (CSD G11: Exists only as a company listing)
 * 03:45, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "List of brands of biscuit" (Not a product directory)
 * 03:41, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Crème de Pirouline" (Redirection to nothing)
 * 03:36, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Passion Pop" (content was: 'The picture was the best thing about this article :( MrAngy 07:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)' (and the only contributor was 'MrAngy'))
 * 03:35, October 5, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Passion Pop" (CSD G11: Advertisement/Spam)
 * 03:51, October 4, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Dynamic Images" (CSD G11: Advertisement/Spam)
 * 17:11, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Nutter-Butter" (rm redir to deleted page)
 * 14:22, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Tiny Teddy.JPG" (Fair use for article that's going away as per CSD G11)
 * 14:22, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Whippet cookie" (Talkpage of deleted article)
 * 14:22, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Whippet cookie" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:21, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wagon Wheels (Biscuit)" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:20, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Toll House" (Talkpage of deleted article)
 * 14:20, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Toll House" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:19, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Tiny Teddy" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:19, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Tim Tam" (Talkpage of deleted article)
 * 14:18, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Tim Tam" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:17, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Teddy Grahams" (Talkpage of deleted article)
 * 14:17, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Teddy Grahams" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:17, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Teddygrahams.jpg" (Improper license)
 * 14:17, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Tagalongs" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:16, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Tagalongs Face1.JPG" (Improper license)
 * 14:16, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Taxi (chocolate)" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:16, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Penguin biscuit" (Talkpage of deleted article)
 * 14:16, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Penguin biscuit" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:15, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Nutter Butter" (Talkpage of deleted article)
 * 14:15, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Nutter Butter" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:15, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Nilla" (content was: 'Stub' (and the only contributor was '65.54.154.26'))''
 * 14:15, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Nilla" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:15, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Milano (cookie)" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:14, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Maryland Cookies" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:13, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Magic middles" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:13, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Iced Vovo" (Talkpage of deleted article)
 * 14:13, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Iced Vovo" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:12, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Iced vovos.jpg" (Fair use for article that's going away as per CSD G11)
 * 14:12, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Hydrox" (content was: 'Stub' (and the only contributor was '65.54.97.196'))''
 * 14:12, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Hydrox" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:12, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "HobNob" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:11, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Hello Panda" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:11, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Hellopanda.jpg" (Improper license)
 * 14:10, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Famous Amos" (Talkpage of deleted article)
 * 14:10, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Famous Amos" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:10, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Dunk-a-roos" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:09, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Choco Leibniz" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:09, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Chips Deluxe" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:09, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Chips Ahoy!" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:08, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Chips Ahoy!" (Talkpage of deleted article)
 * 14:08, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Brussels cookies" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:08, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Brusselscookies1.jpg" (Fair use for article that's going away as per CSD G11)
 * 14:07, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Breakaway (food)" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:07, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Anna's Swedish Thins" (Talkpage of deleted article)
 * 14:07, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Anna's Swedish Thins" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 14:06, October 3, 2006 Improv (Talk | contribs) deleted "Pirouline" (CSD G11: Exists only to promote a product or group)
 * 1) Each of your actions listed above was overturned and most of them resulted in unanimous keeps at AFD. Were all these deletions done in good faith? Or did you do this to illustrate how dangerous new speedy deletion criteria could be, if employed on a larger scale (above and beyond cookies, that is)? If you did actually believe (or possibly still do believe) that all of these items were rightfully deleted, and if this was a product of your own (rather extremist) POV (on something as non-controversial as cookies), what effect will your beliefs have on your decisions as a member of the arbitration committee (especially those involving more contentious issues), if you are elected? Thanks. — CharlotteWebb 07:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) *They were done in good faith, in that I felt that policy changes were mandated from above, that such deletions would benefit the project, and that it was worth giving it a shot to see if it would fly. Often that's how Wikipedia works - people try things, they sometimes work and sometimes don't, depending on how well argued they are, how polite people are when doing them, and the mood of the community. In the end, it's not so much that there's only one right that we're all converging as that there are many ways the community could go on any issue. I am disappointed that the community didn't go the way I hoped it would go, but you can't win them all :) I think calling it extremist would be a mistake - some years back we used to regularly delete articles on this kind of stuff - we wern't extreme then, and the position isn't extreme now - if it's different than they way you think, I would suggest you do it the courtesy of not writing it off as wacko. That said, I don't know what effect this would have on ArbCom - as the winds failed to materialise in the direction I hoped, I've stopped with such deletions for now. I don't see it as having been in the least bit improper to have tried to start something - this is a perfect application of someone being bold but polite, and eventually backing down when things failed to go their way. If more people would've hopped on the bandwagon, this position wouldn't be unusual in the least.
 * 3) *This tells you two things about me as a candidate - first, that I don't feel that consensus can overturn project goals and some kinds of policies, and second, provided that people are polite and that they stop when it looks clear their efforts to steer the community in are not being fruitful, this is a positive rather than negative thing (done in moderation). --Improv 15:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to ask, did you actually believe these articles "existed only to promote a product or group", or did you recognize that many, most or all of them were simply normal attempts by editors to build neutral encyclopedia content, and deleted them anyway because you decided they were non-notable? Everyking 11:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see both sides of this argument, and this could be seen as the admin version of WP:BRD, after a fashion. Its not as though deletion is forever if consensus overturns it.  Improv has said this was done in good faith, and I'm 100% willing to accept that.  On the other hand, I do have a question.  Why so many articles at once?  This was done in an effort to uphold a new criterion for the betterment of the project, but policies and guidelines don't always get it right out of the starting gate.  Why were a handful (maybe as many a half-dozen) of these not chosen as test cases to see how consensus would respond?  Serpent&#39;s Choice 06:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Whenever people only do something halfway, people always complain about inconsistency and favouritism. While a certain amount of that is unavoidable, I try to minimise it - I chose a fairly small category that I could reasonably do the work to purge myself. --Improv 18:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from John Reid

 * 1) I'm Pat Gunn. On Wikipedia, I've been Improv since 2004, and before that was Pgunn. In real life, I do psychology research and systems administration for Carnegie Mellon University.
 * No, and no. (I'm tempted to end this answer here, for comedic effect, but ...) I'm 28.
 * 1) It would be better for the community if it only did so when necessary - allowing broad admin discretion and letting them work things out for themselves using our existing traditions seems to be working reasonably well when it comes to how policy is interpreted. In cases where there's a serious breakdown on the Wiki, and where Jimbo does not decide to step in (or is unavailable), ArbCom is a decent almost-last-court (I feel that Office actions and mandates that come down from the Foundation theoretically have higher priority) to settle things, but it would be best to keep this minimal, in my opinion. This is not based on philosophical clean lines -- it's just an intuition that it'll work better that way. --Improv 07:07, 10 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. 08:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My initial inclination is that this is not a case that should be accepted by ArbCom. Many of the issues involved are based on misunderstandings and poor communication, and once things were to become cleared up, I suspect the whole mess would be made simple for most people involved. At most, Arbcom might need to prevent the wheel wars involved, but I don't see the committee doing anything more substantial. Unless you want me to suggest solutions that go beyond what I would do as an Arbcom member, I don't think there's much more I can say about this. I should note that I only happened to catch this question out of the corner of my eye -- it would be easiest if you were to add new questions at the bottom of the page if you want them answered. --Improv 08:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?
 * This is about the hardest question I could imagine, and it's something I've been working on for some time, without much headway. I'm still working on sorting out the issue, but as you presumably want an answer right now, I'll give you the intuitions I have, with the understanding that my position is incomplete and in progress. Maybe in another few months I'll say I have an answer/position I'm comfortable with, but to claim to be there now would be incomplete. I understand that having a position would be really useful right now to arbitrators, especially with recent events relating to Ed Poor, but my intuitions are strong enough to be actionable.
 * In areas of controversy (discounting particularly fringe groups like flat earth societies), it's important to cover all notable sets of perspectives as perspectives. Where there is no controversy, we often speak with a "voice of truth", e.g. when covering the atomic weight of elements.
 * If we were to imagine the atomic weight of a certain element becoming a topic of religious dispute (thought experiment!), we might instead note that "The scientific community, based on the general model of atomic physics, generally holds that the atomic weight of FooBarium is 173. The Unix community, by contrast, holds that it has an atomic weight of 1, because ...". When it comes to infoboxen for the article on that element, it would be helpful for each infobox to make it clear by title which community's definitions are used, e.g. if there is a unix table of the elements, it might list FooBarium, just as the scientific community here might list it in theirs - both could have a place, provided both are not super obscure.
 * I should note that this is the beginnings of my understanding of NPOV - I would uphold it as an arbiter, but this does not mean that I think that it is superiour to SPOV in any way. It's what we use on Wikipedia. I personally might wish that SPOV be satisfied before NPOV be considered, but given that NPOV is considered a basic principle of Wikipedia and it's a reasonable way to do things, I accept it as something to uphold here - trying to twist a definition of NPOV to sneak SPOV in would feel dishonest to me. --Improv 20:24, 10 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?

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?


 * 1) I have no idea. I understand completely that ArbCom is a tiring, thankless task that chews people up, and I have no idea if I'd last three years or not. Given that I've seen some incredibly productive, impressive people become inactive or retire, it'd be foolish of me to assert that I will definitely go for three years. I'll do my best if elected - anyone promising more would be dishonest. As for specific causes, there are a number of causes that could cause me (or anyone) to resign -- changing situations in real-life, taking another position relating to Wikipedia that would be incompatible or take too much time to allow both, emotional exhaustion, or anything that might ever cause me to leave wikipedia. These are all theoretical - I would hope, other things considered, to last three years. As for negative feelings from others, I'm extraordinarily thick-skinned - I don't care about being popular on Wikipedia. I care about the project much more than I do about the community, and actions that may be unpopular but good for the project are things I have no trouble doing. If I would resign, it would not relate to unpopularity.
 * 2) I'd talk with them about it. As an admin, part of a much larger admin body (many of whom are not particularly clued or don't accept project goals), working alone to interpret policy and good-of-the-project and push one's perspective, and seeing if one's views/actions stick is part of good behaviour. Arbitration is different - Arbiters should have a deep understanding of policy and project goals - disagreements between them are like those between long-term prominent admins, and should primarily be based around discussion (not that they really could be based on much else). If I couldn't convince them, and things didn't go the way I wanted, we'd move on and keep working together, I suspect. Having been employed by companies and universities for several years since graduation, I've been in this situation many times - sometimes I've been upset at the way things worked. I've always made clear my positions on matters, only changed my mind when I felt it was warranted, and sometimes changed other peoples minds. I hope this answers your question. --Improv 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from maclean
You are a former Mediator. Why were you a mediator? Why are you a former mediator? You are listed as an 'active' mediator on the MEDCABAL. Why do you participate there? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will continue as a mediator?
 * I was a mediator because I wanted to help users resolve interpersonal disputes. I stopped mediation, by-and-large, when it began to look like the Mediation Committee was going to be about content disputes -- I feel that content disputes are better handled out in the open, based on a mix of policy, admin discretion, and straw polls, and that mediation would complicate content disputes. I am still available for mediation in cases relating strictly to interpersonal issues, but by and large I think those are rare now. The Mediation Committee isn't (or at least wasn't -- I haven't kept up with it) the most solidly functional part of Wikipedia -- that's (at least partly) why the Mediation Cabal came into being (there are some other reasons, some of them terrible). I made myself available as a Medcab mediator to raise my profile as a potential mediator, so interested parties could contact me for mediation. So far, very few people have taken me up on that (because mostly Medcab works by MedCabalists selecting cases, not vice-versa), but it's always rewarding when they do and I manage to make a difference - one of the things I try to stress in mediation in any form is that any dispute people have has happened before and is often mentioned or touched by some policy -- carefully structured initial communication (to deal with often great initial hostility) eventually can become a respectful discussion of views, history, and (most importantly) ways to change future behaviour. That said, I don't mediate much anymore (although I do tend to advise users fairly often on how they, unilaterally, can best abide by policy and norms of good behaviour, and still resolve situations). I don't see an inherent incompatibility in being available as a mediator and being an arbiter, nor in being on MedCom (technically) and MedCab - all three seem potentially complementary to each other, although in order to establish the trust essential to mediation, I would need to make it known that I would recuse myself from Arbitration cases, which would potentially be inconvenient if it happened frequently. I would be open to becoming unavailable to mediate if on ArbCom if people thought it would be a good idea. If I am not seated in ArbCom, I'll still be available for mediation, of course, although I won't be actively seeking cases in either situation. --Improv 04:18, 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 13:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a super active editor at this point - I tend to do a handful of edits a day, but rather consistently. I don't see that changing either way - I spend more wikitime on OTRS, some of my activities on meta, and other things. I will continue to be available for help/advice - I believe that old editors should be part of a holistic medicine - we should not find institutions and quietly lurk there, especially punitive ones - it's important to continue to be culturally engaged in steering (or at least arguing about steering with other folk) the community. So long as no confusion is made between speaking under-ones-role and speaking as-a-very-experienced-editor, I think it's important not to disengage in any way. --Improv 15:59, 14 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!) 14:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The best example of this, for me, is dealing with users. Sometimes when dealing with other users who are marginal or especially frustrating, especially newbies, my initial inclination is, like many long-term wikipedians, to dismiss them. I'd prefer not to name names, because I don't want to embarass said users (some of whom are still around). By making certain that my communications with them were phrased in a noninflammatory way, I found a good number of such people turned out to be transformable into good users, despite my strong intuition that they'd eventually be banned. This isn't a good example for ArbCom questions, because Arbiters only rarely encounter new users. In general, when I come to believe that I made a mistake, I reverse it to the best of my ability. They're not generally especially memorable events to me - the community depends on people exercising good judgement, and as you note, that involves being open for correction/a change of mind. If I remember a better example that isn't incredibly dull, I'll update this answer. --Improv 18:18, 18 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?


 * Reply to Answer - It can be yourself, your colleagues, other editors... Multiple responses won't hurt. ;) Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 18:53, 18 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?

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


 * Whose error of judgement? Mine? Someone else's?
 * "Polite but Firm" is how I like to describe how admins should act in these situations.
 * Only some of these actually conflict, but I'll do my best.
 * WP:C is a legal requirement. Going against the law places all WMF projects at great risk, and so it's top priority to be compliant.
 * WP:NOT is needed to prevent our project from losing its focus. It's incredibly important that we don't become the next myspace, everything2, friendster, or similar, because attracting large numbers of users who have no interest/respect for our project focus will rot our community (I can just hear the "keep" "keep" on *fD), we'll get all sorts of junk content and trivia, and we'll become involved in disputes completely unrelated to our mission.
 * WP:NOR is a subset of WP:NOT. Many of the same concerns apply.
 * WP:N is needed to keep project focus.
 * WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS have a complex relationship that I can't strictly rank. V/RS are closely related anyhow... As an example of the complexity, sometimes we might be able to verify a number of quotes on a subject, but including them en masse would constitute a bias (imagine all the quotes about BushJr or Margaret Thatcher we might collect!).
 * WP:BLP is an unfortunate policy. Except as covered by other policies, I place very little stock in it, and would not be disappointed to see it go away.
 * --Improv 18:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your clarification of the first question, I generally tend to be pretty easygoing - except in cases where I decide to take a stand, I generally prefer to discuss than go against other editors/admins, even if they're pretty clearly wrong. In times where I do take a stand, it's generally because I feel that in the end not doing so will harm the project - I do weigh that harm against the likelihood of achieving the desired effect. If it were my judgement that were problematic, I would adapt as I saw appropriate. It's important to note that some types of judgement are not *about* correct/incorrect - judgement is often about situations where complete knowledge is not present (or possible) - in such cases one just has to do one's best. Evaluating judgement is based in part on aesthetics. --Improv 22:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

New Question from AnonEMouse

 * You wrote this above: "I should note that I only happened to catch this question out of the corner of my eye -- it would be easiest if you were to add new questions at the bottom of the page if you want them answered." (So I'm putting this at the bottom of the page.) In my experience, Arbcom pages don't work like that - Workshop, Evidence, etc., each have separate sections for the people presenting, and things get added to the middle sections all the time, much like this page before your sentence. Meanwhile, arbitrators have to look at 5 or so cases in parallel, unlike just a single page for a nominee; and complicated arbcom cases can also be much longer than this single page for a nominee. As an arbitrator, would you not be in serious danger of missing important parts of Arbcom cases on those pages if they aren't added to the bottom, and don't get caught by the corner of your eye? AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'd handle them differently. --Improv 18:45, 20 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.
 * Abuse depends on how admins should act. Wikipedia is not a "rule of law" community - we operate partly by judgement (and challenges to those judgements by other users), partly by policy, and partly through systems of authority (from Jimbo's traditional role to WP:OFFICE). Admins should not strictly represent/follow the community, nor should they follow policy/process when it is broken. They are expected to act with the best interests of the project (and secondarily, the community) in mind. Sometimes they do things that will be challenged - most of the time that's no big deal. There are times when they may step beyond acceptable bounds of behaviour (many ways to do this are possible), and if they refuse to be reigned in, they may need stronger measures in order to be persuaded or forced to stop. I could say that I prefer discipline or prefer caution, but that's all arbitrary relating to some imaginary centre that I can't place and don't care much about (e.g. How deletionist are you? 713.4 arbitrons. What does that mean? I dunno!). In present times, I find myself saying "develop good judgement, and trust it" fairly often to other wikipedians - people who want "rule of law" (and voting) tend to be, in my opinion, very harmful to our project. --Improv 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Carcharoth
Your user page timeline states that you have run in several elections: the December 2004 ArbCom elections, the Mediation Committee elections, the January 2006 ArbCom elections, and the September 2006 Wikimedia Foundation Board elections.

Thanks. Carcharoth 15:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First, can you provide a more informative link for the process of how you were elected to the Mediation Committee, and how and why you became inactive?
 * Second, do you think that this sort of information should be disclosed as a matter of course in candidate statements, or is leaving it for people to discover on your user page sufficient?
 * Third, in general, what have you learnt from all these elections, and how have you improved as a candidate after each of them?
 * Fourth, what are the advantages and disadvantages of a candidate repeatedly running in several elections over a 2 year period?


 * 1) If I remember correctly, medcom "elections", at least at the time, were done by candidates putting themselves forth, with the general public commenting on them, with any existing mediator's "nay" acting as a veto. I became inactive after some discussions on the mailing list indicated that people were starting to do content mediation, which I believe is both badly divergent from Medcom's goal and leads to secret decisions on content. Privacy in mediation is a great thing when applied properly (that is, to help people learn to value each other and relate productively), but when applied to content disputes it leads to a lack of transparency that can easily bite people who are not part of mediation (or, if private mediation does not bind third parties, leads to the users involved attempting to recruit such people to act as their proxies). I felt that the committee was heading in the wrong direction, and was starting to get regular requests to do content disputes, so I decided to become inactive.
 * 2) Anyone running is a lot bigger than a few statements they might make - by and large I think the statements are (or at least should be) of minimal importance (anyone who is eloquent enough can cover up being a poor candidate with a shiny, distracting statement). I would hope the community would not vote for a candidate they do not recognise, and that at the very least they would visit relevant userpages and skim talkpage archives.
 * 3) I don't think elections are a great way to learn things. I may have changed between the elections, month-by-month, year-by-year, but the elections themselves were probably not educational.
 * 4) I don't see any disadvantages. If I had my heart really set on winning any election, it might be disheartening, but I think that'd be the wrong attitude - these things are more about willingness to take on ugly tasks than winning a prize. It might be joked that the only disadvantage to running consistently is that I might win an election :) Arbitration and WMF board positions are both very high responsibility/high status/high duty positions that take a lot out of people. I care about the project, and want parts of it to be well-administered, which is why I've run for these things - I don't get much satisfaction out of status.

Questions from Anomo

 * 1) Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom?
 * 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.
 * 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?
 * 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.
 * 5) What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them?
 * 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? Anomo 12:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I think that age is a very strong plus for ArbCom, at least partly because in the kind of activities that ArbCom does, individual members are likely to deal with threats and trolls that might be inappropriate for minors -- people who have a working knowledge of the laws and the society in which they live, as well as the confidence not to be bullied and the personal liberties associated with being an adult would make better members. I don't think we're far from the point where disgruntled people might threaten to (or actually) sue arbiters over decisions they participate in - being of age of majority seems like it would be wise. I think Wiki-age is probably more important than real-life age - being an experienced admin for a good amount of time seems like a reasonable prerequisite. I don't think people who haven't decided to take safeguarding the community to the next level, and had all the attendant experiences and trials of judgement are really suited to understand how adminship works, and they may in that lack badly misjudge standard admin practice. I have not yet come to a firm conclusion on whether these should be hard requirements or flexible.
 * 2) I read WikiTruth (and some of those other sites) as well. They frequently only tell half the story. It might be a good idea to contact the blocking admin and ask them why they did what they did (if they can remember). It's important to note that if you view the user contribs, they won't show you what the user contributed to pages that were deleted (even if you're an admin). I'm not saying there is or is not a problem - I suggest that such things be looked at more carefully. We've occasionally had some bad admins who have acted inappropriately, but we've also had a number of crazy people who have done their very best to manipulate people over their well-needed blocks. Very occasionally, both the admin and the crazy person have acted inappropriately, and sometimes simple misunderstandings have happened between good admins and blocked users, with neither really to blame. Any process has a certain amount of messiness, even if it, by-and-large, works well.
 * 3) For long-term or indefinite blocks, especially if the user continues to use their talk page to create problems, it can be justified. It depends on the circumstance. If you know of such circumstances, getting more admin help to deal with it can be useful - I'm available to lend my judgement to such cases, regardless of the election results. I can't guarantee I'll help people who I think have little to contribute to the project, but I'm always willing to look.
 * 4) That sounds like it'd be problem behaviour, although it should be noted that being defeated in an argument doesn't entitle the winner to a trophy. Someone should probably talk to people who do that. As above, I'm available.
 * 5) This depends on what they're doing with their talk page. I've occasionally done it when people kept spewing legal threats or having other problem behaviour, although I am always willing to continue conversations through email. If you were to talk to anyone who I took to email that way, you'd find that I've been "polite but firm" with them.
 * 6) Did I say that somewhere? *shrug* Maybe I did. Admins tend to understand project goals and are needed to exercise their judgement more often and more broadly. When an admin goes bad, it's very unfortunate, and the damage done to the project can be severe. When an admin is not bold enough, similar damage is done to the project through their inactivity. Admins need to make judgement calls, and sometimes they'll make mistakes (the nature of judgement) - they should be judged by reasonability, not on correctness (to be so mild that one would never make a mistake is to fail to serve the project as much as necessary). When they make an error on specific cases but their judgement as a whole is good, their action should be reversed without prejudice to either party involved. If they have bad judgement, there's a problem and they should at least be warned about it (with harsher treatment as appropriate). I think your assertion is incorrect though -- admins have occasionally been ruled against by ArbCom. It's important to note that the community is under a certain (growing) amount of stress because it's failing to educate new users of our project goals and practices - people who don't eventually pick up on these things are likely to eventually have problems with other users and the project as a whole. The problem is pretty bad when enough non-admins are like that -- it's much worse when people become admins.

I'm willing to discuss any specific cases you have in mind either through email or on my talk page - it sounds like you might have some more specific complaints in mind. I am interested in preventing corruption of the project through overzealous admins, although wanting timidity from them would be just as harmful. --Improv 14:15, 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 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would bring a certain set of perspectives and ideas on the way things work on wikipedia born of long experience here. --Improv 11:19, 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 20:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's better to have these things out in the open rather than kept in the dark. When I oppose someone in a certain role and think they're harmful to the project in that role (or in general), I'm not afraid to say so publicly (as I did with Eloquence on the Foundation Board). Minimising friction is a poor goal when it might hide problems until later. Decorum is overrated - I have no interest in it. I have not (yet) looked much at the list of people running, and believe (hope) that the people running are the right kind of people, but I do not believe that having any position (or running for one) ever entails giving up on opinions and insight one has. I don't know if I will have any issues with other candidacies, but I'm not going to promise right off the bat not to. --Improv 11:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from TheronJ
1. Based on your background, prior conflicts, etc., are there any areas or topics where you anticipate receiving requests for recusal, or where you might consider self-recusal? If so, what are those areas and how would you decide whether to recuse? Thanks, TheronJ 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any initially. I've been known in real life to have political and other opinions, but I don't think Wikipedia is an appropriate place to advance or express such positions, and primarily care for the good of the project. If anyone asked me to recuse from a case, I would talk to them about it and seriously consider it based on the merits of their reasoning. --Improv 03:54, 5 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".

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]]?

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.

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.

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.

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.


 * 1) I will continue to occasionally comment on ArbCom cases to the committee when I feel inspired to do so. There's not much more I anticipate doing until/unless I am ever appointed or elected to Arbcom in the future. The Arbcom process only interacts with users based on their behaviour or by their decision to become involved in a case. I trust arbcom to usually reach a reasonable decision, and only occasionally have something to contribute. If I ever get a lot of time and become interested, and they have need of it, I might see myself clerking for them.
 * 2) I haven't been following the election much. At this point, I don't anticipate being elected, and it doesn't bother me very much - I was asked by someone else to run, and I don't know if I would've otherwise. I know a number of the people running, and several of them are handling the election as I would expect given their history and personality, while a few have surprised me. I am bothered a bit that few people take the effort to understand my actions regarding a new CSD and cookies, but I'm not entirely surprised. There are a few users who I see as harmful to the project who, because of my opposition to their stances, are opposing me, but that's to be expected. I haven't actually seen any campaign banners, although I've been more active with behinds-the-scenes stuff recently than usual, so I wouldn't be surprised. To the extent that the election is a popularity contest, I will reliably lose, because I place the project above the community and I don't care if I'm popular. I don't campaign and I don't believe in campaigning - to the extent it happens, it is an illness of our community. My thoughts on the other people running vary as per the person.
 * 3) I lost my temper in a conversation on IRC with Kelly Martin about a month ago. I've since apologised to her. I've occasionally misjudged some people who turned out to eventually become productive Wikipedians. I sometimes have been not bold enough, or given in on confrontations involving problem behaviour, and allowed situations to fester that may, with early guidance, have reached better conclusions.
 * 4) I apologise for my actions when they are, in my judgement, things that fail to meet my ideals. This does not mean that when I push for something and the community moves with me that I think I was wrong, but rather when I do something out of the heat of the moment or don't do something out of cowardice or tiredness, with the action itself failing to be appropriate by my measures, and it hurts someone specifically, I apologise. I could apologise to the community when I wrong them, but that's about as vague as apologising to mother nature for pollution.
 * 5) Badly behaving users need to be corrected and educated about the way things Work here. Wikipedia has a deep, nondemocratic culture, with many traditions and rules that need to be adopted by incoming before they can be considered members of the community in good standing. We want to keep absorbing new members, and such an influx is a great opportunity, tied to great risk of disruption to our institutions and traditions. Inculturating those who can adapt to us without losing them is a challenge that we need to be ready to face. Not everyone is a potential editor of Wikipedia, but getting new, good members is a wonderful thing.
 * 6) I came here because GNUPEDIA looked like it was going nowhere. I'm here to help safeguard the project and ensure that we create a great tool for education that replaces traditional encyclopedia. To that end, I use my command of spelling, style, and grammar to occasionally edit articles, I help with stuff behind the scenes like OTRS and stuff on Meta, and I contribute to policy with a particular emphasis on protecting the primary goals of the project from dilution by populism and ego. I also find the project interesting because it provides me an opportunity to meet a lot of interesting people, many of them from other countries - I use the opportunity to help improve my command of some other languages. I consider my primary interest to be that of a guardian because I've been on several other open projects before and I've seen many different ways for projects of various sizes to fail. Wikipedia is presently sliding towards several of those types of failures, and I would like to arrest that process and move us back to smooth functioning. --Improv 20:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from LoveLight
Would you kindly evaluate and/or comment article 911. As a reader do you find that piece factual and accurate? As an editor do you find it satisfying (with regards to our fundamental Wiki policies and guidelines)? As future arbitrator how do you feel about status quo imposed on that and similar "ever burning" editorials? Lovelight 10:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Portions of it are manipulative, for example the focus on children. It is also much longer than articles on other events of greater magnitude (e.g. some recent earthquakes), but this is systematic bias rather than NPOV. Fixing the first would be a good thing, but the length of it is not so much a problem as the lack of similar depth on other world events. This is a topic which is notable as a prominent historical event, although some connected articles (e.g. info on the survivors) are memorialish in content and should be at best gutted, if not removed (Perhaps the 911 memorial wiki, if it's editable in its new place). I should note that if I am indeed a futire arbiter, it is unlikely to be by this election. However, ArbCom is not primarily about content disputes - it's more about behaviour. Any involvement with content should probably be very rare. Some topics are bound to be eternally controversial - I don't think we'll ever find a way to defuse things so close to the human heart. --Improv 00:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Zoe
What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I presume you're talking about either ArbCom's pending decision here or the straw poll here. I have not been following the case - I will need to examine it to come up with an opinion. In the meantime, if you would clarify whether you're asking for comment on Arbcom's action, the straw poll, or the situation in general, that may help guide the topic of my response. I expect to have read it by tomorrow (about to leave work) and will probably have something to say by then. --Improv 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am asking for a comment on the Arbcom's pending action. As well as any other comments you feel are appropriate.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like ArbCom has not yet come to a completely firm decision, but they're leaning towards desysopping MONGO and Seabhcan. After reading the entire case, it seems clear that there were inappropriate actions by both parties. The case against Seabhcan is more clear - it took me considerable work to conclude that MONGO was significantly in the wrong as well - the most clear parts were his (highly spurious) attempt to interpret the joke about Occam's razor as a threat of violence (although there was a lot of incivility aimed at him in that exchange) and characterisation of a wide array of different opinions as obvious trolling. There are things that resemble POV pushing in some of his edits as well. The use of admin tools when one is involved in a dispute is something that, except in rare cases, shows bad judgement - there are times when admins should not "go it alone", in order to help check ourselves in situations where we might get heated. A cool head and civil demeanor are essential to being an admin, and while MONGO's contributions to the encyclopedia are great, that does not excuse him from that duty. My focus on MONGO's behaviour here is not meant to indicate that he is mostly at fault - Seabhcan and several other people in that area abundantly provided abuse (and desyssopping Seabhcan is a very clear and easy decision) - MONGO's failing as an admin is primarily rooted in not managing to keep cool, and failing to withdraw from situations where he was unable to keep cool. For this reason, I think it is wise to either give MONGO a probationary period (which primarily serves to tell him that his conduct is unbecoming of an admin and needs to change) or de-admin him (with possibly a 2-month exclusion from RfAdmin). I have no comment regarding the straw poll - I do not think that it shows careful judgement or discussion on the matter, and would advise ArbCom to ignore it. --Improv 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)