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

Ask me anything!

(No. Not that. Please. Not that.)


 * 1) Can you describe how you will deal with the feedback and inputs of the general community of editors on different cases? What kind of role will such outside opinions play in your work as an arbitrator?  Rama's arrow  04:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly feedback and inputs are an important and valuable aspect of the job, considering the role of the community in shaping the direction of the project. That said, the role of arbitrator is not to follow the numerical vote of the community, but to consider the will of the community against the needs of the project against the directions from higher up the totem pole, etc, etc, etc. The short form being "I will read them, think about them, and either change my mind or respectfully disagree." Phil Sandifer 04:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) You say on your user page that you are a professional academic. Please elaborate on the same.  What do you feel is the role of "expert" Wikipedians in the development and maintenance of articles? -- Samir धर्म  04:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am a PhD student in English at the University of Florida, specializing in media theory. My academic webpage is here. The role of "expert" Wikipedians is simple - they're usually good at editing Wikipedia. Expertise, along with many other things (reasonableness, courtesy, dilligence) is something Wikipedians generally respect in discussions. This is a social fact, however, and ought not be backed up on any sort of policy or guideline level any more than we need a guideline called "Respect the authority of nice people." Phil Sandifer 05:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Phil Sandifer, could you please explain why you think it inevitable that the ArbCom will have to start looking at cases involving content? What do you think might be the broader implications of this for the Wikipedia Project? Dasondas 06:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply put, because we've gotten very god at shooting behavioral problems without arbitration involvement. Over the last 18 months or so, our blocking policies and social policies have gotten increasingly more streamlined and sane, leading to it being easy to deal with disruptive and malicious users on an administrative level. Meanwhile, issues like WP:LIVING, the push for quality over quantity, the importance of citations, and other things have ledto a lack of clarity on content issues just as the social issues clarify. Thus the thorny disputes, at present, are content disputes, not behavior disputes, and the arbcom will need to adjust accordingly - as it has been. Look at the number of broad disputes like "notability" and "pseudoscience" that it has found itself entering in the past few weeks. Phil Sandifer 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion of ex-admins who have not voluntarily given up their sysophood? Do you think they should be resysopped at AC's will, or do you think that they should go through another RfA? What are your thoughts on the current re-adminship process for involuntarily-desysopped admins? – Chacor 11:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is something that has to be handled case by case. I do think the RFA process has some serious flaws that make it problematic for sysopping in general, little yet for re-sysopping. And I think some of the older de-adminings on the part of the arbcom were based on a naive understanding of what RFA was even at the time, little yet of what it would become. Thus cases like Carnildo become vexed, difficult cases. In general, I would prefer that involuntary desysopping be reviewable by the arbcom as well as by the community, and that either be able to re-elevate a user. In the cases that predate the problems with RFA, I would generally consider appealing the decision to the arbcom to be a reasonable course of action. But that addresses the general case - specifics would depend on the behavior of the user both before and after the de-sysopping, the nature of the community support and opposition, etc. But as a general rule, I should think arbcom decisions should always be liftable by the arbcom as well as by the community. Phil Sandifer 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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;. 12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It would depend on the case. In most cases, I should think not, as the arbcom ought not act when it is not needed. However I can envision cases where it would be more appropriate to continue the case - should the resolution to a dispute be unacceptable for some reason, or should the resolution be of sufficient importance that it ought be codified somewhat in the form of a decision, I would find a ruling to deal with those things appropriate. Phil Sandifer 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What role do you believe private discussions between the parties should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm unconvinced of the possibility of answering this as a general case, but here goes... in certain cases of extremely disruptive users, evidence from private discussion is essential to understanding the nature of the disruption. These cases are the exception, rather than the rule. I don't think such evidence should be a priori banned from consideration. I also don't think such evidence should usually be taken into much, if any, consideration. Phil Sandifer 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 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;. 12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again - and I apologize for the somewhat intensely useless nature of my answers here - I don't think there's a general rule here. Such users should appeal to the arbcom, and the cases should be heard on their own merits. I'm certainly not running for arbcom in order to advance some policy agenda, or to rewrite the rules on re-adminning, or evidentiary procedure, or probation. I have no overall programmatic agenda on these issues. I'll look at the merits of a presented case, and I'll make the best judgment I can on those merits. Phil Sandifer 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) This is a standard question I'll be asking all candidates. What do you believe can be done to reduce delays in the arbitration process? Newyorkbrad 16:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably not a lot. Certainly we don't want to drag arbitrators even further from the act of editing pages. Certainly we don't want to preclude people with jobs and lives from being arbitrators - such things are rightly marks of a maturity that we want in the process. As always, there will be a rush of activity early on with the new committee, and then by February or so it will taper off, and by June will be its normaly sluggish self. Temporary injunctions may well be usable to take the edge off of the problems caused by this fact of arbitration, but ultimately, I think the best we can hope for is "not quite as bad as it used to be," which, generally speaking, we've been able to get every cycle. (You may not remember the horrors of early arbitration. Cases routinely took 3-6 months. It was unbearable.) Phil Sandifer 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) (This is to improve my knowledge as much as to know yours) What do you think about the problem of several admins misusing their tools or behaving poorly with others? What guideline and method would you follow as an arbitrator (and would want ArbCom to follow) in correcting/punishing abusive admins in cases that may come before you? Rama's arrow  18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Punishing? Very little - the arbcom ought not be in the punishment business. In terms of correction, I don't really see many problems with the current system. Bad sysops get desysopped or put under restrictions, and either learn or don't stay as sysops. Is there a problem in the system that I'm unaware of that requires correction? Phil Sandifer 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not sure if this is part of your job description, but what would you do to improve the enforcement of ArbCom decisions? What is your take on an ArbCom decision being read or not read as a precedent for similar issues that may arise? Rama's arrow  18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's generally important to keep a line between the arbcom and the enforcement, hence the arbcom not making its own blocks. That said, past arbcom rulings due tend to be a good way to guess at future arbcom rulings, and anyone who ignores the precedent set by an arbcom ruling does so at their own risk, both because the arbcom will almost certainly look unfavorably on it, and because any admin who acts to enforce the principles is unlikely to meet with serious opposition. Phil Sandifer 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Mr. Spinner, have you stopped beating your wife yet? (Sorry, obligatory)  Ral315 (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Phil Sandifer 01:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Another standard question I'm asking everyone. If elected, do you anticipate being actively involved in drafting the actual decisions of cases? Do you have any writing experience that would be relevant to this activity? Newyorkbrad 03:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said in my statement, this is something I'm particularly interested in. As for experience, I'm a published academic. On a normal semester, I write around 100 pages. I'm not worried about that. :) Phil Sandifer 03:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (Actually, I did see that in your statement, but I had written to other candidates that I'd be asking the same questions to everyone, so I figured I should do it. Thanks for the quick reply. Newyorkbrad 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

Questions from John254
Having frequently expressed opposition to voting on Wikipedia, would you be willing to participate in the votes which the arbitration committee employs to formally resolve every case that it considers (see Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Proposed decision, for example)? Also, what is your opinion on the arbitration committee's finding in Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability, which states that 6) Straw polls and voting are used in a number of situations. There is a tradition which discourages excessive voting, but no actual policy. Polls may be used when appropriate to gauge opinion. John254 23:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbcom voting is an internal measure. I wouldn't object to the CVU altering its internal policy by vote, and I don't object to the arbcom opting to have votes as their own internal policy. The arbcom is, in any case, pretty clearly a special ase. As for principle six, I think I agree with its intend, though I find its wording sloppy - it would be preferable to specify "straw polls" in the third sentence, and to clarify the distinction between a poll result and consensus. Phil Sandifer 00:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Brian New Zealand

 * I will be asking the same questions to every candidate thus they do not specifically target you


 * Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam etc) If so, would you recluse yourself from cases centred on these?


 * This seems to me primarily a question about the arbitrational equivalent of NPOV. I have opinions on certain matters. I also recognize that my opinions and what a Wikipedia article should look like are two very different things. Certainly I can't think of anything I have such a strong opinion on that I ought not edit it because I can't be NPOV. Thus I would say the same applies to arbitration. Phil Sandifer 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
 * Recusal, as is proper. Phil Sandifer 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
 * I think I've shown a willingness to contest the decisions of just about anybody. Phil Sandifer 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?
 * I don't think this is something that can readily be guessed from the outside, and I think it depends heavily on what cases are before the committee, what the other members are, and what their time commitments are. Certainly I intend to be able to put in substantial amounts of time over the next year, and if I feel like I am unable to give the job the time it deserves, I will step down. Phil Sandifer 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
 * Of course not. Phil Sandifer 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator?
 * I'm honestly not sure what you're looking for with this question. A platitude about collaboration and some hard editing dispute I was involved in? Phil Sandifer 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
 * I think the decision-making process is often occluded. I do not, however, think that the reasoning for a decision is often unclear. That seems to me an acceptable framework. The sausage making does not need to be a public display. However, it must be clear what the justification for the decision is. Phil Sandifer 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Addition: Furthermore, it is of course important to have public input on a case and to demonstrate that the public input was actually listened to. Workshop and Evidence pages, as well as all arbitration talk pages, are vital for this purpose. But if the question is about whether I oppose things like the arbcom mailing list, no, of course I don't. Phil Sandifer 15:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions? Brian | (Talk) 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think members of the community who have established themselves, shown that they enjoy the respect of their peers, and have offered a great deal of service to the project are treated differently in all aspects of the encyclopedia. This extends to arbitration. It is not a matter of bias towards people with the sysop bit, but rather a matter of a bias towards the level of respect and commitment involved in acquiring that bit. That does not mean administrators are above reproach. It does, however, mean that well-meaning and positive contributions mitigate against negative aspects. Administrators, by the nature of the process through which they become administrators, are likely to have demonstrated such respect and commitment. Phil Sandifer 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Follow-up Many thousands of excellent and dedicated editors have no desire to be sysops, preferring instead to focus on editing. For that reason, they may also be less well-known than the "political class". Would you extend more trust to a sysop than to an ordinary long-term editor without a history of conflict? How would you evaluate the relative "positive contributions" of someone who mostly sysops, and someone who mostly edits? Derex 08:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Where possible, yes. I mean, one has to note, trust is a social phenomenon. It's difficult to trust someone you do not know, and somebody who generally avoids talk pages and namespace pages where one meets one's fellow editors is thus likely to be less trusted - not on any sort of judgment of merit, but because nobody knows them. On the other hand, such users rarely find their way to the arbcom, so this is to some extent neither here nor there. And obviously, one has to look at the histories of all of the users involved in arbitration to try to avoid unfortunate oversights. Certainly if I realized a user in an arbitration was a long-time editor who mostly did small, relatively thankless jobs and had the good sense to avoid the beuraucratic elements of Wikipedia, I'd be inclined to extend them a measure of trust and deference. Phil Sandifer 14:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

From Scobell302
Having ran in the last ArbCom election, have you learned anything from that election that you'll apply to this election?


 * From the election? No. Since the election? I've become, I think, more aware of the complex role process plays in making decisions on Wikipedia, and the way in which bad process causes wide-ranging destruction. I've learned the importance of flexibility in the rules, and the fact that adding a new rule may correct one problem, but will almost certainly cause three more, particularly if that rule has a piece of process attached to it. But from the election itself? No, not really. Phil Sandifer 14:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

NB. "the last 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 14:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A related question, which I think you've already answered above: what has changed since last time? How have you improved as a candidate? Also, see the question below about the account used when running in that election. Carcharoth 14:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional Questions

 * 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 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Oversight, I think, needs to be more widely disseminated, since the current people who have it are, by the nature of their responsibilities, rarely involved enough in editing to see the edits that need to be nuked. Such applications should be conducted via a thorough review of the applicant's editing history and conduct in disputes. I lean towards not allowing self-noms for it, but I could be talked out of that easily. As for Checkuser, I don't think there's a practical need for wider dissemination of that power, but there might be something to be gained by increasing the number of people who have it outside of the arbcom by one or two. Still, because of the high privacy concerns involved here, this is still something that needs to be distributed very, very carefully. I might pick two or three well-respected admins to give it to, I might not.
 * 1) What sort of arbitration activities have you been involved in, in the past? Have you been involved in any ArbCom cases previously? Do you have any experience in settling disputes? -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 06:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been less active in arbitration this year, due to it being a year where I have been in courses every week save for three. I'm out of coursework as of December, and will have more time, which I will devote either to clerking or arbitrating, depending on the will of the community. Before that, however, I had been involved in about a dozen and a half arbitration cases, usually as the person raising the case. I wrote Requests for arbitration/How to present a case based on that experience, and was also the first selected clerk (before the position was made official) based on that experience. These cases ranged from dealing with highly disruptive users (CheeseDreams, John Gohde, Lir) to good users with a track record of problems as well (Everyking, WHEELER), to complex cases where nobody was being "bad," but where subtle policy issues were at stake (Webcomics, and my current minor involvement in the Pseudoscience and Children's Privacy cases). I suspect, though the more active clerks may have made this untrue, that I am more experienced in the arbcom than any non-arbitrator. Phil Sandifer 14:57, 2 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.
 * The pedophilia box case. In this case, the arbcom (quite rightly) observed that policy and process do not trump common sense and judgment. Though not a sea change in how Wikipedia was run (Honestly, it had always worked that way), it did mark a major warning that has yet to be recorded elsewhere. Every year, there's one or two cases like that, where substantial shifts in the policy of Wikipedia occur. The arbcom has astonishing influence over Wikipedia, and it's important to be aware of who you're putting on it. Phil Sandifer 17:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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?
 * Policy? Nothing. Guideline? WP:RS, a broken mass of kludges that were assembled with no thought to most of our articles and less thought to sanity. Process? WP:DRV, the biggest cesspool of process-over-thought on Wikipedia today, sufficiently bad that I consider it wholly not worth consultation or respect. Phil Sandifer 17:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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?
 * I have, and I will. Phil Sandifer 17:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?
 * I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this question. Phil Sandifer 17:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

4a. How accountable, integrity and transparent would you want/expect members of the Arbitration Committee (inlcuding yourself if elected) to be?
 * I'm not sure how one could dodge accountability as an arbitrator, since votes are public. Similarly, the level of transparency seems set - as I said, I think the reasoning behind arbitration rulings is generally quite clear and explicit. As for integrity, I will conduct arbitration with the same integrity I've conducted all my dealings on Wikipedia. I'll let my record and history in the community speak for what that is. Phil Sandifer 21:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

5. You've been listed as an inactive ArbCom clerk. Why is that so, and do you really have the devotion of time to take up this repsonsibility as an Arbitrator?
 * That is because I've been carrying a massive research load over the past year while taking a substantial number of courses as well. As of December I will be finished with all coursework for my degree, leaving me with a far more flexible schedule. Phil Sandifer 21:10, 4 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?
 * I don't think it's an either/or. Basically, the problem with them is that they are harmless fun that needs to happen rarely. Which is to say, if everyone on Wikipedia involves themselves in them, it becomes a problem. (This is part of the userbox problem - they were fine until they became widespread.) And then once it becomes a problem, it's too popular to easily stop. (Again, what went wrong with the userboxes). As such, it's best to actively discourage it before it hits any sort of critical mass, but not to be complete dicks in Stalinizing it, and even to let the best of it survive somewhere. Phil Sandifer 16:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional questions
1) Your statement includes the following: "The de facto committees that form around the frightening number of guidelines we have need disentangling, and furthermore need an exceedingly subtle touch that does not overplay the arbcom's hand and weaken its reputation."

Since they're guidelines and not policy, why do you think they require disentangling?


 * Because guidelines are often still binding and important - c.f. WP:POINT, a guideline that's frequently cited in arbitration decisions. Phil Sandifer 21:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what role do you seen for arbcom in disentangling the guidelines?


 * Guidelines point to a harmonious and good way to write and run an encyclopedia. But all of them are variations on the basic injunctions of "Don't be a dick" and "Don't be dense." Because those two guidelines would be unhelpful, while the larger guidelines are at times inaccurate (In that, if literally followed, they can lead to dickishness or density) the arbcom is necessary in explicating and demonstrating the gap between, say, WP:POINT and "Don't be a dick." Phil Sandifer 21:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you intend to base rulings strictly on policy, or is it your intention to enforce guidelines, too?


 * I intend to keep with existing arbitration procedure, which has treated guidelines such as WP:POINT as important principles to be considered in decisions. Phil Sandifer 21:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

-- 2) Your user page states "Lord knows the rules are making me nervous and depressed. So I'll follow all the stuff I can remember, and not try too hard to learn the other stuff .... I'll just zap 'em for 24 hours two warnings early, and call it a day .... I'll just say 'Yeah, but what's wrong with what I'm doing?' 'It violates policy' isn't enough." Would your outlook as an arbitrator be similar, or would you follow due process if elected? Derex 06:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Process? Unlikely. Wikipedia is not a bueracracy, and the arbcom has always been one of the most important bodies in ensuring that it stays that way. It has never displayed deference to broken processes, and has always held that if the rules lead you to do something stupid, the rules are wrong. And I intend to hold to that. The processes are supposed to be good ways of reaching the right conclusions most of the time. When they stop reaching the right conclusions, or get something wrong, or become bad ways of reaching the conclusions, I have and will continue to have no qualms about disregarding them. Wikipedians are expected to use judgment first and process second. Phil Sandifer 21:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718

 * Are you still an admin? (I am a new user, read your user page, and can't tell what happened next). Jd2718 02:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Phil Sandifer 02:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Would the ArbCom be diminished if you were not elected? If yes, how? Jd2718 02:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely not. The arbcom might be diminished by the election, but I should hope there are enough good candidates that nobody's election is essential. Phil Sandifer 02:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from David Levy
Do you have any regrets regarding your interactions with me? &mdash;David Levy 07:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll forgive me - I don't have any particular memories of my interactions with you. (I'm very bad at holding grudges.) Can you link me to some of our previous interactions so I can jog my memory and give you a more useful answer? Phil Sandifer 07:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * [Reply by David Levy (including links and quotations) moved to Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate Statements/Questions for Phil Sandifer/David Levy.]


 * Ah yes - thank you for refreshing my memory. (And I hope you don't mind my refactoring it off the talk page - I think it's an important question, and I suspect nobody but you will read it if I leave the summary in place.) A couple of things played in there, and led me to take a more aggressive tact than was probably necessary. For that, I apologize.
 * The two big things, for me, were this. First, I was (and am) gravely concerned about the community's lack of awareness of its role and relationship with the Foundation and Developers. With AUM, and further with things like OFFICE or the children's privacy case currently in front of the arbcom, the community has acted as though it has some sort of veto that can be extended over the Foundation and Developers. This is not so. When either one says jump, we do so. We do not even ask how high, because generally speaking, they are too busy to answer. AUM seemed to me an important case in this regard because it was a case where the developer evidence we had at the time pointed clearly against meta-templates. Thus I thought a hard line was important. I still stand by the refusal to allow meta-templates unless the developers said otherwise. And I do think, in circumstance like AUM, a hard line is important, because the community is prone to poor judgment regarding its role in these things. The two issues are first that AUM was not, in fact, accurate (Despite earlier developer claims), and second that I probably advanced the hard line with less tact than was appropriate.
 * Second is Netoholic. I'll be the first to admit that Netoholic can be a problem. I was, after all, the first to arbcom him. The problem is that the result of that arbcom case made it so that he was a target even when he proceeded to get more reasonable. As a result, he went from needing probation to a sort of anti-probation, whereby he was getting thwacked for stuff when he shouldn't be. Due to that, I tended to hold people to a very high standard when blocking Netoholic, because it seemed an important counterbalance.
 * Again, both issues, despite being well thought through, ended with me being more aggressive than was necessary. I apologize. Part of it, I think, is an accident of tone - one or two of the things you highlighted as incivil I am unable to imagine myself meaning as harsh. At best strongly worded. So I'm not really sure what to do with that. I'm sorry I seem to rub you the wrong way. I hope you can at least recognize that it is not a product of rashness. Phil Sandifer 16:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply and your apologies. I actually do mind the removal of my response, so I've restored it.
 * Much of what you wrote above pertains to your enforcement of WP:AUM, but I agree that the information to which we were privy at the time dictated that we restrict/eliminate the use of meta-templates. I, too, was working to undo the damage that I believed users (including me) had unwittingly inflicted on the community.  As I noted at the time, "I [didn't] intend to ever use such template syntax again, until a developer explicitly [stated] that [it was] okay to do so."  (In fact, I never authored meta-template syntax again.)  I also awarded a barnstar to Netoholic, and he displays it to this day (alongside the barnstar awarded by you).
 * My question pertained more to the following (which I shall now expand into additional questions):


 * Why, given the fact that I clearly expressed my support of the developers, did you "strongly oppose" my request for adminship on the basis that I "was one of the most active supporters of ignoring the devs on the meta-templates issue"? &mdash;David Levy 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite your reminders, I'm far from being able to reconstruct my exact trains of thought, so this (and my other answers) should be taken not as justification but as a best guess for what my reasoning at the time was. I deal with a lot of conflicts on Wikipedia, and I don't remember all of them. That said, my best guess is that I was unaware of the admirable subtlety of your position. Phil Sandifer 20:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When the inaccuracy of your claim was repeatedly brought to your attention (on the assumption that there had been an honest misunderstanding), why did you ignore all but the first message (to which you posted a semi-germane reply) and refuse to amend your false accusation? &mdash;David Levy 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was Christmas Eve, I was enmeshed in about five other conflicts on Wikipedia, and I never got around to really looking closely at the situation. The vote was clearly in error, as I see now. I'm sorry I was unable to get around to looking at that while the vote still counted, and I'm glad that you still got adminship. Phil Sandifer 20:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In retrospect, do you agree that my stance on the issue&mdash;that we should have "just ask[ed] for details" instead of attempting to "divine meaning from things [a developer] said." (quoting Brion Vibber)&mdash;was correct? &mdash;David Levy 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes and no... I tend to be wary of bothering the Foundation and the Devs when possible, and suspected that deprecating meta-templates (Which had plenty of problems before the database issue) was in fact a more expedient and sensible course of action than trying to bother them. I'm glad clarification was sought... I probably would still, in that situation, not seek it at that time. Phil Sandifer 20:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I must disagree for three reasons:
 * 1. Brion Vibber subsequently stated in no uncertain terms that we should have asked the developers for more information instead of jumping to conclusions and misrepresenting their stance.
 * 2. While the use of meta-templates was a crude hack, it's never been established that it caused any harm to the site's accessibility. Conversely, the "hiddenStructure" hack implemented by Netoholic as a replacement for meta-templates verifiably broke pages for some users (including people with visual impairments).  Had we consulted Brion in the first place, he would have told us all of this before a massive amount of time and effort was invested in an endeavor that made countless pages worse.
 * 3. Brion also indicated that the proper, native implementation of the conditional functionality (now known as "ParserFunctions") was fairly trivial to add, and this would have occurred much sooner if the issue had been brought to the developers' attention in the beginning. &mdash;David Levy 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When I brought Brion's comments to your attention, why did you defensively declare that "this seem[ed] rather beside the point" and ask if I had "some other, more arcane point [I was] trying to make?" &mdash;David Levy 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know, and can't really come up with a guess that's more plausible than others. Phil Sandifer 20:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When I responded by posting a lengthy explanation of why I was raising the issue, why didn't you reply (let alone apologize)? &mdash;David Levy 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I was swamped with work (Having, quite foolishly, taken on arbcom clerking in a semester where I had no business even editing Wikipedia, little yet clerking), and walked away from the issue since it seemed pretty clear how it was going to shake out at that point. Phil Sandifer 20:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why did you violate the blocking policy by unilaterally lifting a block without consultation? You stated above that you felt that Netoholic was being unfairly targeted, but I blocked him under both the letter and spirit of the ArbCom ruling against him.  (He was edit-warring in an article, reverting to his preferred content in defiance of consensus).  Why did you assume bad faith (that I was "bully[ing] him into silence") on the part of someone of whom you had no recollection?  I was online at the time, and I would have been more than willing to discuss your concerns.  (We also could have discussed my concerns, including the belief&mdash;later confirmed in an ArbCom case&mdash;that Netoholic was abusing the terms of his "clarification" to create a situation in which he was essentially immune from administrative intervention.)  &mdash;David Levy 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably because I thought it was a somewhat urgent situation that deserved quick action. Not particularly sure - that's just usually the reason I might ignore the blocking policy like that. Phil Sandifer 20:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * At the time, that isn't what you wrote; you described your action not as a violation of the blocking policy, but as an invocation of "the administrator right to overturn each other."
 * This also doesn't explain why you assumed bad faith on my part by accusing me of "bully[ing] [Netoholic] into silence."
 * Without asking you to recall your precise reasoning, can you speculate as to why it might have seemed "urgent" to unblock a user who had edit-warred by repeatedly reverting to an article version that opposed consensus (violating the terms of his ArbCom parole in the process)? &mdash;David Levy 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How was it that you were able to recall my "history of conflict" with Netoholic (to the extent that you felt comfortable unilaterally overturning my administrative act without consultation), but not your history of conflict with me on exactly the same issue (which, for the record, had absolutely nothing to do with the block)? &mdash;David Levy 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I had, a few days earlier, been trying to mediate a dispute between the two of you, probably - see, probably. Phil Sandifer 20:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That wasn't "a dispute between the two of [us]." My involvement was limited to my endorsement of another admin's block of Netoholic.  I was not a party to any of the edit-warring from which it resulted.  &mdash;David Levy 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you not believe that you should have researched the matter (to better understand the justification behind my block), discussed the situation with me (or other sysops if I'd been unavailable) and proceeded as policy prescribed? These are among the key principles that I expect an arbitrator to value and uphold.  &mdash;David Levy 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a fast move, because there appeared to be some urgency to me, and I didn't really have the time to be doing much of anything on Wikipedia at that point. It was, on the whole, an exceedingly awkward point for me on Wikipedia - I still had what I felt were oblgiations to fulfill, but I manifestly lacked the time to be doing them. As a result, I ended up doing a mediocre job. I relied on a combination of bluster and reputation to smooth the edges off of things I didn't have time to do right. Eventually, I spent a month or so more or less fully logged out, logging in only when I felt like I needed a username or admin bit to do something, and acquired a much healthier relationship to Wikipedia, and I think my edits since, oh, about July show that - they've been among the least tense months I've spent on Wikipedia. (Believe me, if it were May, I wouldn't even think about putting my name up for arbcom. I'd throw myself out a window first.) Phil Sandifer 20:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your apologies were sincerely appreciated, but I'm eager to read individual replies to these specific questions (which would help me to better understand why you acted as you did and how you might act in the position of arbitrator). Thanks again.  &mdash;David Levy 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because I am concerned about the readability of the page, I've moved it to a subpage - I hope that's an acceptable compromise. If you restore it again, I shan't argue further. As for your questions, I've inserted replies above. Phil Sandifer 20:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I thank you for taking the time to respond. I've left the long post on the subpage and replied to some of your points.  &mdash;David Levy 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from SlimVirgin
Hi Phil, I was interested in your comment about having a high tolerance for well-intentioned users. A concern of mine is the extent to which the ArbCom is perceived as displaying too high a tolerance of bad editors and/or bad-faith editors. I think for the most part this is an inaccurate perception, but occasionally there seems to be truth in it. In particular, I feel that the workshop page was a great idea that has turned into a disaster, with ill-intentioned users turning the workshops into platforms for sustained attack based on little or no evidence. As a result, post-case levels of toxicity and breakdown of relationships are sometimes worse than the situation that triggered the cases in the first place; and when that happens it means the arbitration process isn't working. Two recent examples would be Israeli apartheid and Giano II.

So my questions are: Do you find the workshops helpful or problematic, and would you consider calling a halt to them? How would you as an arbitrator put into practise your maxim of displaying high tolerance for well-intentioned users? (I know it's impossible to answer that, so I'm really just looking for some expansion of your ideas about it.) How would you protect well-intentioned users from people who want to misuse dispute resolution to produce toxic circuses, and how would you go about spotting when that was happening? In other words, how would you protect good users without damaging due process?

I realize these are hard questions, but any indication of the direction you're thinking in would be appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Workshops first: Yes, they're tremendously problematic. The major thing here, I think, is that arbitrators and clerks need to be more willing to nuke stupid proposals. It's a problem shared with the talk pages of proposed decisions - look at the Pseudoscience page, for instance. Good luck getting anything through on that. Again, discussions need to be forcibly brought to a close sometimes - "This proposal is not under serious consideration" or "Barring new evidence, the arbcom has already made up its mind on this issue" are important sentences that should be deployed as needed.


 * As for your second question, a couple of things would be of use. First, utilizing subject bans more and probations slightly less. There is no reason a clear and dedicated POV pusher needs to be editing on any subject area they have been trying to push their POV on. I would rather such users go find areas where they do not have strong POVs to advance, learn to have respect for the goals of the project, and then appeal their case when they've shown themselves to be capable of good edits. Such a move is vastly less traumatic for all involved than an extended probation.


 * Second, the arbcom needs to recognize that there are some topics that just produce witchhunts. We've had countless cases on forms of pseudoscience, for instance. (Pseudoscience itself, and multiples of both MNH and Irismeister, to say nothing of the Bogdanov affair, two climate control disputes...) And political rivalries like Israel/Palestine are similar tarpits. In such topics, the arbcom needs to be aware that there will be virulent activists who attempt to misuse the dispute resolution process, and be watching for it.


 * Third, it has to (and on this front I think it has been successful) recognize that any editor, no matter how well-intentioned, will crack under a sufficient amount of pressure from trolls and malcontents. Some onus is on the editors to extricate themselves from situations where this will happen. But in a situation of extraordinary toxicity, one must remember that nobody will look good, and that it is more important to figure out what made the situation toxic than to catalogue everybody's sins. Phil Sandifer 22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent answers, thank you. I like your idea of subject bans rather than probation for some users, and your last point is very important. There are pages where the aim for some people seems to be to produce the maximum amount of toxicity, then to haul regular editors off to the ArbCom for responding badly to it. Thanks for the time you spent on the answers; much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:57, 14 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 think it's a mistake to treat this as a question of power. It's a common misconception that Wikipedia is a political system where people have the "power" to do things. They don't. The community is empowered not to make policy, but to make good decisions. Where the community screws up, they can be overturned. Hence the userbox situation. The arbcom is similarly empowered. Thus it is not that the arbcom can "decide" whether a proposed policy has consensus. Rather, it is that the arbcom is trusted to be correct about what the community consensus is. It's a subtle difference, but it's absolutely essential one. Phil Sandifer 19:01, 6 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?
 * This seems to me a more thorny issue, in that it gives the arbcom direct oversight over someone else's oversight, creating a hierarchy where one ought not exist. (Since it's not an organizational flow chart.) All the same, misuse of bureaucrat powers seems to me no different than misuse of sysop powers in principle, and we allow the arbcom to adjudicate one, so the other ought to follow. To my mind, the more important issue with this case is whether the community came to an acceptable consensus. That is not for the arbcom to judge. However, I do not think the arbcom would be out of line in declining to find problem a bureaucrat who thought that the RFA process was egregiously flawed and needed, in some cases, to be ignored. Which is to say, I don't think the arbcom is obliged to punish a bureaucrat for bucking tradition if the bureaucrat can make a convincing case that the RFA process is in egregious error. Phil Sandifer 19:01, 6 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?
 * I completely agree. Phil Sandifer 19:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * I think you change the game here between the two questions in a way that causes the question to be less meaningful than you think. The issue is not one of performing some amount of "service" that then gets you some number of points you can spend to get away with an infraction, nor of some economic calculus. Rather, it's that users who have earned a measure of trust enjoy certain considerations due to that trust. That trust is not, however, a scorecard - adminning doesn't get you X points while editing gets you Y. It's a social phenomenon. So there's no way of comparing "admin trust" to "editor trust" in some sense of "who's worth more." Phil Sandifer 19:01, 6 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.)
 * It's an old one, but one has to go back somewhat far to find a case I'm both familiar with and wasn't party to. Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche. The ruling regarding LaRouche material, while absolutely spot-on, is a content ruling that had far wider implications than was considered at the time, and is still used as justification in content issues. I'm of two minds, actually, in that it's a very helpful ruling, but it's also a ruling that the arbcom, for obvious reasons, avoids in almost all other cases. More recent issues, as I said, are also ones I was involved in, so would have had to recuse from... I think the webcomics case failed to think through the issues of treating Wikipedia as a series of political battles. I think the Pseudoscience case is rapidly closing without a key principle about the nature of scientific articles. I think the election case closed wimpily, without consideration of article ownership and POV editing. Phil Sandifer 19:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer! A bit of clarification - which part of the Lyndon LaRouche ruling troubles you? Remedy 1 (Original work from LLR), 3 (Supporters), both, or something else? Also, I took the liberty of linking the other cases in your answer, I hope they're the right ones. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was the ruling of the removability of all LaRouche-sourced material that troubled me. Phil Sandifer 23:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Even more - what part of the Pseudoscience proposed decision do you think is missing? From reading it, they seem to be making a distinct gradient, with clear differences between mainstream Science, obvious Ps, generally Ps, questionable S, and alternative theories in S - what did they miss? AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The principle I thought was key (serious encyclopedias) got added, so I'm much more OK with this. Phil Sandifer 23:19, 9 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?
 * See my statement - I intend to spend quite a bit of time writing decisions precisely because of this problem. Phil Sandifer 19:01, 6 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?
 * AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that non-administrators are some sort of "important political faction" on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why we'd engage in some sort of arbcom affirmative action for them. It appears to be the case that non-administrators have not enjoyed the support of the community for the arbcom. Should one be elected to the arbcom, I would assume that evidence such as deleted articles would be provided to them by other arbitrators. But I would be very surprised by this happening, and see no reason to try to force it to happen, as that seems likely to lead to the idea that Wikipedia has factions of administrators and editors - a foolish line of thought that should be avoided. Phil Sandifer 19:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Alphax

 * 1) What is your favourite colour (I think we know the answers to the other two)? [ælfəks] 13:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Silver. Phil Sandifer 15:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What is this "that" that you refer to? [ælfəks] 13:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You just asked it. Phil Sandifer 15:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) How many cabals do you belong to? [ælfəks] 13:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * e to the pi times i. Phil Sandifer 15:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What POVs have you declared or should declare? Under what circumstances would you recuse yourself from a case? [ælfəks] 13:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any POVs that need declaring - nothing so strong I wouldn't feel appropriate editing an article on the topic. Possibly some remote academic humanities topics where, by the nature of my job, I'm a professional POV pusher, but even on those, I can summarize without adding my judgments. I'd recuse myself, as I said above, if I felt I had a conflict of interest. I'd judge a conflict of interest, roughly, as "I feel like I can judge all or part of this case without even looking at evidence." Phil Sandifer 15:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

From homunq
Since your statement talks about policy debates, I'd like to ask how being on ArbCom would help you resolve those any better than you can as a bold user? If another user would accept your word as final only because of you being an ArbCom, wouldn't that just lead to resentment of ArbCom? (This can obviously be read either as a question or a suggestion to withdraw your candidacy, but either way, great job.)


 * I think there's a general understanding among the community that what the arbcom says goes. They sometimes still get strong objections, but this is rare - the fact of the matter is that there's not great resentment for the arbcom and a general respect for its decisions. There are a few exceptions where the arbcom has proved unfortunately out of touch, but in such cases it hasn't been too hard to correct it later. Phil Sandifer 16:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from John Reid
The narratee of a song by The Who? (What are you looking for here?) Phil Sandifer 15:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No. No. Phil Sandifer 15:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see a firm white line between policy disputes and user conduct issues. Surely a policy dispute tends to feature two users each following their version of the policy, no? In which case obviously the arbcom is going to have to step in if no other form of dispute resolution works, and probably the arbcom will have to figure out who is right about the policy. So yes, the arbcom should arbitrate policy disputes, but no, it shouldn't arbitrate matters where there is no user conduct issue. Phil Sandifer 15:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
(I think I already know the answer to this from the mailing list and questions above, but I want to give you a chance at an open-ended answer, and I'm asking other candidates anyway...)

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


 * Well, that depends on the article. Certainly on an article on a scientific topic, the mainstream SPOV is far and away the most important perspective, and should get the lion's share of the article. It should furthermore not need to be qualified at every sentence with "mainstream scientists believe..." or other such hedges. On the other hand, a scientific article ought contain other significant views - historical ones (geocentrism), politically important ones (creationism), or simply charmingly novel ones that have some measure of mainstream attention (flat earthers, people who think the moon landing was faked). Such viewpoints ought not be the focus of the article, and ought be clearly labeled as fringe viewpoints. Viewpoints that are not significant to the topic of the article (i.e. Time Cube on theories of space and time) ought not be reported except on their own pages, where they ought be clearly labeled as fringe theories with no mainstream advocates. This does not involve the equivalence of NPOV and SPOV, or the declaration that SPOV trumps NPOV in some cases. Rather, it situates the relationship of SPOV to other views in a way that is consistent with other serious reference works. Phil Sandifer 22:45, 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?
 * Were I unable to give the job the time it deserved, and to not believe that this situation would change in the ffuture, I would resign. I do not forsee this happening, and so do not expect to resign. And I doubt that I would ever be the sole unpopular person as a result of an arbcom decision, so would be surprised to see a situation where I would feel the need to resign for those reasons. Phil Sandifer 02:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, the accuracy of the information isn't an issue for Wikipedia - the reliability of the source is. Judgment of a source's reliability is, thankfully, generally far easier than judgment of information's accuracy. That is to say, in such cases NPOV already dictates the course of action. Phil Sandifer 02:46, 12 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 13:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a tough question - to some extent, restraint is a valuable commodity on the arbcom, in that the community is not well served by arbitrators who generate undue controversy. On the other hand, the community is not well served by arbitrators who remain detached from the community. Thankfully, I tend towards relatively uncontroversial areas of the encyclopedia, and tend towards small changes and problem tagging instead of things that could lead to edit wars. I would intend to maintain such involvements - the arbcom ought not become a bully pulpit, after all, and there is some reason to be nervous about arbitrators editing contentious areas. As for being available for advice, insofar as I feel I can give good advice, yes, of course. Phil Sandifer 02:13, 23 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!) 13:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there's a lengthy exchange a few questions up about meta-templates that might prove instructive, complete with my realizing I was wrong about some things in the exchange. So I'll just point to that. (It's the exchange with David Levy) Phil Sandifer 02:16, 23 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?


 * I assume you refer here to my judgment. I would, I hope, admit my errors, apologize, and adjust my behavior accordingly. I'll leave it to others to decide whether my hopes have been reflected by reality in the past. Phil Sandifer 02:36, 23 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?


 * The arbcom decision templates don't really allow for a lot of variety in presentation. Furthermore, I suspect that issuing an explanation or apologia along with the decision would serve to weaken it. I would therefore probably issue the decision as normal, and simply prepare to have to justify it beyond what the decision already makes clear. Phil Sandifer 02:36, 23 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


 * C, NPOV, V, NOR, NOT, BLP, N, RS


 * Noting that RS is a contested guideline that needs to burn. If Attribution gets put into place, I would put it after NPOV in place of V, NOR, and RS. Phil Sandifer 04:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Ben Aveling
1. Which of the follow roles should arbcom members fulfil: judge, jury, executioner, detective, lawyer, psychoanalyst, teacher, leader, parole board, parole officer, weighing machine, opinion poll, weathervane, policeman, keeper of the vision, guardian of peace, visionary, psychic, nurse, other?


 * Judge, jury, teacher, leader, parole board, keeper of the vision, guardian of the peace, other. Phil Sandifer 02:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

2. What would wikipedia lose if you were appointed to the ArbCom?


 * I would probably, for a variety of reasons, begin to curtail my policy work, not working as heavily on things like the coverage and treatment of fictional subjects. Phil Sandifer 02:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

3. What is the difference between flammable and inflammable?


 * Inflammable is a sensible word, extending the existing "inflame" sensibly. "Flammable" is a dreadful word made when people looked at inflammable and assumed that the "in" root was an error. Phil Sandifer 02:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Why does RS deserve to burn?


 * Because in its current form it provides guidance on sourcing that is less than useless, and that is woefully inadequate to the task of writing an encyclopedia. It was clearly written as a hodge-podge of things where people found a source they didn't like and proceeded to add a rule against it without considering the larger implications. I've provided a thorough discussion of this at Reliable sources/Flaws. Phil Sandifer 02:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

5. What is the correct accelerant for contested guidelines anyway?


 * Wikipedia Review? Phil Sandifer 02:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Regards, Ben Aveling 22:10, 17 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. 08:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming no further details (Since past conduct of editors, the nature of the personal attack, the nature of the article being edited, the nature of the parties' edits, etc can and will shape a decision)
 * A is put on personal attack parole.
 * B is warned for personal attacks.
 * C is de-adminned for wheel warring and for careless blocking that bites the newbies.
 * D is put on administrative parole such that he cannot revert another administrator's action without a clear explanation why, or possibly de-adminned, it could go either way and I'd need to read the specific comments.
 * E is reminded not to pour gasoline on forest fires.
 * M, N, P, and Q are checked for sockpuppetry and warned to be civil if relevant
 * F is reminded that week-long blocks on established contributors are excessive and unhelpful, probably in the form of a FoF. ("F isued week-long blocks to C and D, which, as C and D are administrators, proved unhelpful.")
 * H, J, and K have no penalties, though perhaps a similarly phrased FoF ("H, J, and K blocked all parties for 24 hours, which served to inflame tensions further")
 * G gets a similarly phrased FoF
 * I get a stiff drink.

Phil Sandifer 15:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What about Admin G? (Or perhaps your silence on him/her is the best answer, in other words WP:DENY recognition of his actions... ) :-) Otherwise, I agree with your responses here as well as the the assumption at the beginning. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  12:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Added above. Phil Sandifer 02:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions 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? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you seek a position with the Mediation Committee?

2. You wrote Requests for arbitration/How to present a case in Jan 2006. Has ArbCom changed since then or do all the observations still apply? Do you agree with this edit?
 * I helped found the mediation cabal, and have some experience with botht he AMA and RFC - I was at one time a member of the former. I would consider seeking a position with the mediation committee - I'd need to go look at it. I sought one in the past, and was rejected, but that was years ago. Phil Sandifer 02:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Little has changed overall in terms of presenting cases, I think. As for the edit, I have never been impressed by the work of the AMA in the cases I've been involved in - they've tended to engage in exactly the sort of rules-lawyering that doesn't work. That said, I've not seen the AMA in action in the last year or so, so if there's been a major change in their function, it may well be the case that they're more useful. Phil Sandifer 02:49, 23 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.


 * I don't consider either of them important - I will never defend policy above all, and I will never defend a sysop no matter what. Common sense, good intent, and overall cluefulness are what guides decisions like that, and the handing out of sysop powers, along with policy, have tended to work in a way that facillitates this happening more often than not. Phil Sandifer 16:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from WGee
If presented with the case, what would you do about a single-issue user who only makes contributions that are favourable to his/her POV but which are nevertheless neutrally worded and sourced? Is such behaviour or are such contributions compatible with WP:NPOV? -- WGee 07:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've indicated elsewhere, it's a fallacy to suggest that any case comes down to such white line issues. A lot also depends on what you mean by "favorable to his/her POV" and "neutrally worded." Are the edits in question NPOV or not? What was the behavior that drove it to an arbcom case? (As very mild POV pushing has not, historically been enough - it's required edit warring, incivility, etc.) Who are the users involved? All of this could radically reshape the decision to the point where I don't know that I can give a general answer. The best I can give is that mild POV pushing is still POV pushing, and that we always have to be on the lookout for POV stemming from disproportionate weight. Phil Sandifer 15:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough: my question was admitedly vague and ill-thought, and it would be too time-consuming for me to list all the variables&mdash;I would do better just to open an actual arbitration case. But here's a question I believe you can answer:
 * This user, for example, is obviously at Wikipedia to push a POV: he is on a mission to demonstrate that communism is incompatible with anarchism and that capitalism is the only economic system in which anarchy can exist. Now, you say you have a "low tolerance for idiots," and I appreciate that greatly.  So, assuming that POV warriors fall user your definition of "idiots," would you be inclined to ban someone like the aforementioned user based solely on the information that his user page provides?  Or would you need more evidence to conclude that he is a disruptive POV warrior?  I ask you this because well intentioned users are often driven away from the articles that these impassioned POV pushers obsessively edit.  Worse, they often cannot be bothered to open an arbitration case, which is usually perceived as too time-consuming, tedious, and bureaucratic.  The result is not only the loss of constructive users, but the gradual destruction of those articles that are dominated by POV pushers, whose zeal no reasonable editor can match.  Thus, it would be a great help if arbitrators could ban those who are so obviously "problem editors" without demanding tonnes of evidence (which is often difficult to obtain because of surreptitious methods of POV pushing), especially if the community supports the ban.  In other words, I would like arbitrators to avoid pedantry and simply exercise common sense. -- WGee 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is important to differentiate between POV warriors and people who are editing WIkipedia to improve the representation of a POV. Certainly a slow-burn POV pusher is a problem that needs to be dealt with - and I've dealt with a fair number. (See the 2004 Election Controversy arbcom case). The principles that apply here tend to be the undue weight portion of WP:NPOV and the principles regarding article ownership. But it's important to be careful here not to get well-meaning contributors who want to write quality NPOV material on POVs they happen to hold. This is not an easy judgment to make. Phil Sandifer 03:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, contrary to WGee's claim, "this This user," is not here to push a POV. This user is here to contribute information to Wikipedia, mostly about anarcho-capitalism. WGee should retract his false statement. If I do any "POV pushing" it is on my own userpage and in Discussion pages. I would never POV push in an article. I fully support and abide by the NPOV rule. Do I have a POV? Yes. Is that a crime? No. Anarcho-capitalism 04:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Carcharoth
I only recently found out that User:Snowspinner redirects to User:Phil Sandifer. When I was looking through the list of those who had run in previous ArbCom elections, I failed to find the name "Phil Sandifer", and someone else had to point out that Snowspinner ran in the previous election. I have also failed to find any references to Snowspinner in your candidate statement, on your user page, or on this questions list. Is there a reason for this? Do you think that this sort of information should be disclosed as a matter of course? Carcharoth 14:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. Has it really been less than a year since I got the username change? It's not on my userpage because I scrapped my entire userpage a month and a half ago, including quick mention of it - you can see it in this revision: . Since it was a username change, all of my past contributions are now on this account, so there's nothing being hidden. I just didn't think of it. Phil Sandifer 14:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Would you consider updating your candidate statement to include this information? Carcharoth 15:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Phil Sandifer 15:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Another question from Carcharoth
I have been perusing the block logs of candidates in these elections. Do you think looking at past incidents and disputes documented in a block log are a good way of assessing a candidate? Carcharoth 00:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes and no - it's certainly important information, but the block log, by its nature, does a bad job of providing context, and so I'd be wary of relying soley on it - administrator's noticeboards, appropriate talk pages, etc are all important here as well. Phil Sandifer 02:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Anomo

 * 1) Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how such a thing could possibly be enforced, so no. Phil Sandifer 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 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 12:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd need more information on the case. In the case of Thodin, the user was clearly invested in launching destructive personal attacks on a number of contributors. Since the practice regarding such personal attacks would be to delete the edits entirely (as is now possible with oversight), I would not expect the block log to provide an entirely useful history of the dispute, and so I'd want to know if such edits ever existed. Phil Sandifer 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 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 12:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A bit of a loaded question, no? You assume the act to be personal. It's not - users who get banned and have their pages deleted usually have been using the pages for needlessly divisive and offensive disruption. We have nothing to gain by leaving such material up. Phil Sandifer 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 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 12:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd need an example of this. Phil Sandifer 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have seen where there is heated debate, someone who dislikes the debate or is losing (I have usually seen admins do this) 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. Two examples come to mind, but if I name them I might risk offending the admins so I would rather not. Anomo 03:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them? Anomo 12:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When such a person is banned for disruption, and this disruption persists on the user's talk page, locking the talk page is perfectly sensible. That's what banning means - that we're done with the user. Phil Sandifer 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 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 12:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Always? Surely the large number of sanctions against administrators including de-sysoppings show that to not be true. I'll admit a general tendency to side with administrators. But administrators don't become administrators by chance - they become administrators because they've shown themselves to be good, sane editors. It shouldn't be surprising when those editors don't get sanctioned. Phil Sandifer 23:08, 28 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 23:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Puppy Mill

 * 1) Should living persons whose notability is not readily apparent have the right to request that Wikipedia articles on them be deleted, and have that request honored with no questions asked?
 * The problem is that the entire second portion of your question is beside the point - people whose notability is not readily apparent should be deleted. If such a person asks, their asking has no inhernet role in the process beyond alerting us to the issue. But this all assumes non-notability - someone who is notable and asks to be deleted is in a tighter spot, and the person asking may well be wrong about their own notability. Phil Sandifer 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it ever appropriate to subject the person making such a request to ridicule, ban them from Wikipedia, or engage in tag-teaming or cliquish behavior against them?
 * This is a bit of a loaded question - certainly ridicule, tag-teaming, and cliquish behavior are bad, but many things are wrongly accused of being all of those. And certainly some users who make such requests do become disruptive, particularly when it's decided they're wrong about their own lack of notability. Phil Sandifer 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you foresee the potential for Wikipedia to pose a threat to individual privacy? Is the ease with which anyone can insert critical material into articles on living persons, or give excessive space to the views of their critics, a problem?  How would you deal with this if confronted with such a case on the arbitration committee?
 * These seem like straightforward NPOV/NOR problems - what particular concerns do you have in mind that separate them? Phil Sandifer 01:11, 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 20:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that attacking other candidates would be tremendously bad form, and I would personally extend that to a pledge not to vote against candidates. I do intend to cast a few votes in support, which I think is unlikely to cause any conflict. Phil Sandifer 00:17, 3 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.

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 10:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Zoe
What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)