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

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 02:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It goes without saying that both are extremely sensitive areas, and should only be granted to a very few experienced and sound editors, if anyone. The current practice of granting both to Arbcom members makes sense to me; we shouldn't trust anyone with one and not the other. (I think the question of "Would you trust this person to know where you live?" should be uppermost in voters' minds, however much attention they give to Wikiphilosophies and which committees the candidate was on and suchlike.)
 * With Checkuser I don't think I can state any more than the obvious; if handled badly, it would violate the privacy policy that appears at the bottom of every page on Wikipedia. On the other hand, it's a thankless task due to the necessity of not giving editors more information than absolutely necessary. Investigating a Checkuser case is a long and difficult process, and the Arbitration Committee members have the Arbitration Committee to deal with, so I think that at least one or two non-arbcom Checkusers are useful, if we have editors that are sound and experienced enough, and I think the non-Arbcom Checkusers we've had have been exceptional.
 * Oversight is an interesting case. We should restrict oversight permissions to as few users as possible, because the more people that can see Overseen revisions, the less point there is in having it at all. So the ideal would surely be to restrict it to the Arbitration Committee, and other 'trusted by default' members such as Jimbo. However, I don't know how big the Oversight workload is - I don't know how many revisions get Overseen (that's the point of it), and requests are posted to a private email address. I'm stuck with stating the obvious, which is that we should restrict it as much as possible while retaining enough Overseers to deal with how ever many requests we get; and those few that we do choose should be the most trustworthy and experienced of Wikipedians. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:05, 8 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.
 * Requests for arbitration/MONGO demonstrated how Arbcom has more to deal with than simply edit warring and incivility; in that case we had an outside group entangled with ours. The emphatic and decisive action taken by the Arbcom in that case demonstrates how the Arbcom needs to be able to think outside the box of probations and paroles if it wants to create lasting and enforcable solutions to disputes; in return, we have to elect members that can be trusted to use this power wisely.

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 get rid of No personal attacks. We'd lose nothing, because it's redundant with Civility, and it's more open to abuse and wikilawyering. On the one hand valid accusations of tendentious editing, sockpuppetry etc. can be miscast as personal attacks, and on the other it's perfectly possible to be incivil while carefully avoiding direct attacks (otherwise known as being passive-aggressive).

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?
 * To the first question, yes. To the second, I come from a less technical background than many Wikipedians, and on a 15-strong Committee, plus several others with Checkuser privileges, it's possible if not likely that someone more able and willing than I would be a better choice to handle Checkuser requests. Of course, I'd be perfectly willing to do it if it became necessary.
 * Removing revisions doesn't have the same technical aspect as connecting editors' IPs together, so I would be more than happy to help out there if needed - as I said above, I don't know what the queue of requests is like in the same way that we can all see the size of requests for Checkuser.

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?
 * Accountability and transparency are important but secondary to making the right judgements. There have been important cases recently where sensitive information wasn't released as it wouldn't have benefited anyone. At the moment we can see how each arbitrator votes on proposed decisions, and some reasoning behind them; I think that's sufficient accountability. It's difficult to imagine a situation where an Arbcom remedy clearly damaged Wikipedia, and there was nothing we could do about it.
 * Integrity I'm not sure how to answer. Even if this is an election, we're not politicians, we're unpaid volunteers. I don't think the integrity of any of the candidates are in doubt. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

5. Humour, a tradition of Wikipedian culture, has seen through several controversies in recent history. This is including but not limited to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, parody policies/essays, April Fools' Day, whole userpages, userboxes... Do you think that they are all just harmless fun, or that they are all nonsense that must go?
 * My personal opinion is that most of BJAODN isn't funny. It should be replaced with users being allowed to host their own mini-BJAODNS in their own userspace, consisting entirely of material they themselves thought was funny enough to take responsibility for - that would set a higher threshhold on what nonsense got preserved. BJAODN suffers from something of a tragedy of the commons problem - like bash.org, everyone just dumps any old nonsense in. And without a centralised 'funny vandalism will go here' venue, we'd eliminate the problem of vandals being tempted to aim for BJAODN. (There's also the problem that BJAODN entries are often copied and pasted while the history is deleted, frequently breaking GFDL, but if I start talking legal I'm going to look like even more of a miserable old git, so I won't.)


 * April Fool's Day should be restricted to userspace, and possibly something on the main page, as long as it's only about Wikipedia-related jokes like the Encyclopaedia Britannica takeover - at no point should encyclopaedic information or policies be falsified (e.g. having "1923 - Henry VIII came from Mars to impregnate as many women as possible for the birth of a new master-race hybrid" in the "On this Day" section would be out). This is a worldwide encyclopaedia, and April Fool's Day isn't celebrated everywhere; the same rules should apply to any holiday, that while the community should be free to acknowledge it, it shouldn't be forced on everyone else.
 * Parody essays such as WP:ROUGE and WP:SPIDER are a good thing - they lighten the atmosphere, and often they have a serious point behind them (such as that if you accuse someone of being a rogue/rouge admin, you're probably suffering from MPOV).
 * Humour on userpages and userboxes should always be fine so long as the usual constraints on the use of userpages are met (i.e, most stuff goes as long as you're here to write the encyclopaedia). With userboxes, I would personally prefer that all userboxes are substed rather than transcluded, and, as with all things funny, humourous userboxes become significantly less funny every time someone copies it. When someone creates a userbox that makes me laugh, he's being funny. When someone else copies it onto their userpage by entering two words in a double curly bracket, that's not being funny, that's being a hyena. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from maclean
Do you have any 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 in this Arbitration Committee election, will you seek a position on the Mediation Committee? · maclean 05:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've mediated one case under the Mediation Cabal - I put myself forward as mediator another time but the matter solved itself without mediation actually starting. I've responded to several requests for comment, less so on WP:3O but it's an interesting alternative and something I might look at more. I don't intend on trying my hand at advocacy - I can't help feeling that it can be something of a waste of time. My only experience with advocates was one when questioned me on a 3RR block I gave, which had left one of the recipients extremely miffed (he claimed to have left, I'm not aware if he's come back or not). The problem was that the 3RR block was a) totally uncontentious and b) had occurred many weeks before the Advocate brought it up. I basically repeated my justification and he went away again. I really couldn't see the point from either end.
 * If I wasn't successful, then I do hope to mediate some more Cabal cases, and if I felt good enough about the results I would apply for the Committee. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:10, 8 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?
 * As you can guess from my posts in that case's Workshop, no I don't. Arbitration Committee decisions are binding, and that's why I don't feel it should rule on content in articles - it would create a clot on the article in question, a sort of elephant/mantrap in the room that you would have to carefully step around every time you pressed 'edit'. The same applies to policies - unless there is a pressing need, they should remain open to editing. If we need a child protection policy badly, then the Board, Jimbo, legal counsel or someone on that kind of level should be the one to hand it down.
 * 1) Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?
 * Yes, I think the Arbcom should be able to review bureaucrats' decisions and conduct, as it should with editors, administrators and Arbitrators for that matter. But it should also be able to decline to do so if it wishes. In the case you refer to, I think the Arbcom simply didn't feel that the issue required them to either reinforce it or overturn it.
 * 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 think it's self-evident that an isolated bad incident is less of a problem than an editor who is frequently problematic. Blocks are, as everyone knows, designed to be preventative and not punitive; the same arguably applies to probations, paroles and similar remedies. They're only necessary if an editor is otherwise going to be a problem in the future.
 * 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 can't give an A or B answer to that question. Without administration writing good articles would be impossible (if only due to vandalism), and without editors writing good articles administration would be pointless. No two Wikipedians have the same skills, the same background or the same inclinations, so no two Wikipedians are of equal value. Because of that I simply don't think your hypothetical question can be answered - there are too many other factors involved in every conceivable case. The most likely answer is that if both committed in an equally bad action in exactly the same circumstances then both should be equally sanctioned, but unless they're clones that's an extremely unlikely situation. I'm sorry if you consider that 'weaseling out' of this question but it's the only answer I can give.
 * 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.)
 * The Arbcom-mandated notice on Bogdanov Affair is ugly, intrusive and unnecessary - the sockpuppets attacking the article know full well why they're being blocked and reverted. All of us, including the Arbcom, should remember that editors are dwarfed in number by readers, and self-references of this kind are intrusive, however well-intentioned. The other remedy, the article and talk page ban, I support.
 * 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?
 * As I've said in my candidate statement, I don't think it's wrong, as Fred Bauder has the judgement and experience to take on this role, but it would be even better if there was some more variety in who takes the lead. As for what I would do about it, I would try to take the lead on at least some cases - I think everyone submitting themselves for the Arbitration Committee should have the confidence to be able to make that effort at some point. I think we're likely to see that anyway, as we're going to get at least 3 new arbitrators (assuming Jayjg stands and he and UninvitedCompany both win) and as many as 5; that's bound to provide some new energy, which should be welcomed.
 * 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) 14:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that if you have the experience, judgement and trustworthiness to become an Arbitrator, becoming an admin shouldn't be a problem. I believe that if a non-administrator is elected, he should automatically be granted sysop status. That way they can continue being a non-admin if they lose the election if that's what they prefer, but if they win they will have all the powers necessary to fulfill their function (as you say, seeing deleted articles and so on).
 * I don't believe that non-administrators need "representation" on the Arbcom, because that implies that they're somehow separate from administrators. They're not. Adminship is just a set of extra buttons - I stop short of describing it as "no big deal", but it's by no means some sort of Wikipedia elite status. We don't need non-admins on the Committee to provide some sort of 'non-admin perspective' - if an admin's perspective changes just because he can block people, then never mind being on the Arbcom, he shouldn't be an admin. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:15, 9 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. 09:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Response
Well, my immediate reaction is how anyone could actually achieve such a "sneaky revert". I would have thought that B would start off his reaction with something like "How dare you say..." or "I am not a..." etc, prompting anyone else to look at the history or Special:Contributions/A. However, in an universe of infinite possibilities, the probability of any single one of those possible situations occuring is zero, so I'm going to take your hypothetical situation at face value and hope that your encrypted answer isn't "A was actually reverting because he regretted his action, just because I didn't assume good faith in him doesn't mean another prospective arbitrator should, no vote for you".

Anyway, one of the benefits of Arbitration cases is that tangled messes like these are sorted into orderly statements of fact, so I'm going to sort this by listing each editor's actions. The order these are in is purely to minimise confusion.

A has not only been uncivil, but his sneaky revert shows a significant degree of malice. I see him heading for a probation and/or civility parole at least; not necessarily because of that incident alone, but because I find it difficult to believe that that would be an isolated incident.

B has been uncivil, but under provocation and consequently I think it's more likely that for him, it would be an isolated incident. Assuming that, I see him getting a tempered warning along the lines of "B is reminded to remain civil, even under provocation" (thus recognising the circumstances even while issuing a warning).

M, N, P and Q have protested "loudly". I don't believe "loud" is necessarily "uncivil" - however, given that you imply that their motivation is partisanship, and that H, J and K also thought blocking justified, I'm going to assume the intent behind your hypothetical situation is that they were being genuinely uncivil. However, they've already been blocked for that. Further significant sanction from Arbcom would probably not be merited purely on the basis of the incivility you describe; whether they've made other incivil comments that the Arbcom would need to look at, I don't think I can speculate one way or the other based on the information given.

D has shown very bad judgement in wheel warring. The wheel warring started, not when C first accused him of it, but before that, the very first time he interfered with C's block. Blocking editors (as opposed to vandals) is a serious business; you do not simply unblock, you explain to the blocking admin why you think the block was wrong, meanwhile leaving a message on the talk page of the blockee so they know it's being dealt with. Blocks on editors should only be overturned if there is a significant consensus, or if the original admin isn't responding, or if it's really really obvious (I'm talking "trying to block the impostor JImb0 Whales and blocking the real Jimbo Wales instead" obvious). No matter what the outcome, that sort of you're-blocked-no-you're-not-yes-you-are confusion looks bloody ridiculous to everyone, the blocked parties especially. How can A and B take the administrative body seriously ever again?

Not only did D wheel war, he didn't even explain why until the wheel had turned again, despite the fact that the disagreement was over a subtle revert that C could (and did) easily miss, showing even worse judgement and lack of respect. He also blocked editors who were criticising his own decision, apparently either not noticing the blindingly obvious conflict of interest, or not caring. However, you say that H also blocked them and J and K endorsed, so that indicates genuine incivility, so the issue is appearance of COI, not an actual inappropriate block.

So now we come to the remedy. Desysopping? Maybe not, but like A, we'd be looking very carefully at any other cases of similarly poor judgement D had shown in the past, and his subsequent recognition of his error or lack of it. Myself, if not desysopping then as a halfway measure, I might be proposing an 'administrative 0RR' preventing the admin from undoing or altering any administrative action without the admin's explicit consent, which would either expire or be reviewed in a year's time. I would favour setting a date for review, but current standard Arbcom practice is that most such remedies either expire or don't, while parties can ask for review at any time, so that might end up altered. This would be a stronger version of the 'administrative 1RR' given to an administrator a while ago; in my opinion, administrative reverts are sufficiently rare and problematic compared to editorial reverts that even 1RR is almost always a problem, and the first undoing certainly was here.

C has also wheel warred, but as the major damage was done with the first turn, and in each case he was trying to restore the status quo, I'm inclined to look less harshly on him than D. I would say that given that incident alone, a stern warning that it takes two to wheel war would be merited. His blocking of editors who were criticising him was also unwise, but apparently not unjustified (see commentary on D's similar blocks two paras above). I wouldn't propose any penalty for C for not seeing the "sneaky revert".

E's block was not helpful. Third opinions are great, and in editing it's a good idea to be bold, but not when blocking (see above). He should be admonished for introducing more confusion to the situation when he had the opportunity to defuse it, even if he only turned the wheel once.

F's block of a week each for C and D sounds excessive - too long for a "cooling off" period and tending towards the punitive. G showed a lack of thought in his blanket unblock - it sounds less like a case of considering each person and believing that none deserved to be blocked, more like "the whole machine's buggered, let's just throw all the switches back the other way and that'll fix'er". However, both were single dubious actions in a heated situation; admonishments for both on use of the admin tools, much stronger for G as he managed to reverse the most actions of anyone (albeit once), bearing in mind that I would have thought someone would have told them of the problem with their actions already.

H, J and K cobbling together the justification off-wiki for blocking editors on-wiki is, in my opinion, sub-optimal when they could almost certainly have discussed it on WP:ANI or somewhere else on-wiki, in sight of everyone, without losing much. However, with no indication that they didn't fully explain their reasoning on WP:AN, or that anyone seriously disputed it, and knowing that not everyone agrees with my position on off-wiki discussion of situations like these (I acknowledge that IRC makes discussion faster, for instance; I just don't see that it's worth it unless the sky is going to fall tomorrow) I don't see any action on their part meriting sanction. They should be congratulated for gaining consensus, making appropriate blocks and bringing sanity to the sorry affair.

Clerks should be dispatched to look for editors I, L and O. Where are they? Did they change their names and flee to Brazil to escape the Arbcom case? I think we should be told. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have slightly altered my original response to this question. I claim the right to do this because Arbitration Committee cases are discussed off-wiki before 'proposed decisions' actually go public, so normally you wouldn't notice, but voters can apply a 'I have to take your first answer' rule if they must :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:07, 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)?
 * The proposal that Scientific point of view should be established as a basis from which to write scientific articles was resoundingly rejected, and I think with good reason. Writing from a neutral point of view should ensure that the scientific consensus is properly represented. Meanwhile notable minority opinions should be covered, but only to the degree they deserve; that's what we have the undue weight proviso of NPOV for. I would object to almost any conceivable proposal that NPOV should be deviated from just because a particular point of view (e.g. scientific) is "right" - even when it is. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

1. I've noticed that a total of thriteen people have resigned from the committee, and that there is currently one vacancy open in one of the tranches. Having members of the committee resign sometime during their term could create problems somewhere down the road. What do you think are the odds that you yourself might consider resigning during the course of your term, and what if any circumstances can you envision that might cause you to resign? Also, do you think that possibly negative feelings from others arising as a result of a decision you made could ever be likely to be cause for your own resignation?
 * I think it's unlikely that I'd resign, but then I wouldn't be running if I thought otherwise. It's obviously not desirable that we should lose Arbitrators; but on the other hand, the committee is large enough to not be irreparably damaged by temporarily going down to 14 or 13 arbitrators.
 * As for resigning due to community negative feeling, it's unlikely that I'd resign due to an Arbitration Committee decision (as those are done by majority), and I've been here long enough that I don't believe I'd ever do something on my own that would lose the confidence of the community.

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?
 * I think the fact that the Arbcom doesn't rule directly on content (for my stance on this, see above) means it's not necessary for it to have expertise in the field under dispute. One of the things you get told if you close enough AfD discussions is "How can you think yourself capable of closing that discussion when you're not knowledgable about x, if you did know about x you wouldn't have deleted it" - to which the answer is usually "we need verifiability, not truth". We don't depend on editors' personal expertise to write our articles, we depend above all on reliable sources. In the end, when people have to edit war, bully and generally act tendentiously, it's likely that the information they're seeking to include violates WP:V, WP:NPOV or similar core policies. There are a lot of people (outside Wikipedia) who think that "truth by consensus" can't possibly work, but I haven't yet seen a case where consensus was clearly in the wrong, and the lone crusader for truth was in the right. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Giano
What is your view on the IRC Admin Channel. What subjects do you, and would you if elected, see fit to discuss on the IRC Admin channel? Why would you not discuss the same subjects On-Wiki. Giano 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never used it, or any Wikipedia IRC channel, and I would continue not to do so as an Arbitrator unless something specifically required it. There are, at a quick count, 15 IRC channels that relate to the English Wikipedia to varying degrees, and unlike the mailing lists, which can be read at leisure, seeing something 'important' depends on being there at a specific time, so I can't see that use of the IRC channels affects ability to be on the Arbcom.
 * While discussion may take place on IRC, it can't be used as a venue for deciding policy, justifying non-trivial administrative action ("non-trivial" defined as any issue where someone might ask "Please explain the reasons behind this" on-wiki), editing or anything similar. Chat logs cannot be posted (see m:IRC channels) so even leaving aside the issue of whether it's appropriate, you can't say "We worked this out in IRC yesterday evening (and lest we forget, "yesterday evening" for Americans is the middle of the night for Europeans), here's the chat logs". Attempts to present any kind of off-wiki discussion as consensus for on-wiki action have generally been disastrous, the Blu Aardvark unblocking fiasco and the fair use image gallery policy debacle being the most obvious recent examples. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:25, 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 13:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not a prolific editor (as in writing articles, as opposed to administration) as it is, though I do create and expand articles occasionally as can be seen from my userpage. I expect that my level of contribution would remain roughly the same. As for help and advice, being on the Arbitration Committee means that it may not be advisable to actively step into heated disputes, as they may later go to Arbitration; however, I would be perfectly happy to give advice as I always have. Help desk is one of my most frequently-visited pages and I don't see this changing. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Question by Bhadani

 * Would you please share evidences publicly warranting an indefinite block of User:Anwari Begum, particularly her IP address?
 * As I already told you in July, the account was a sockpuppet of Prin, established by a Checkuser case done by Essjay. Checkuser evidence is never shared publicly.
 * Do you believe that the ArbCom members should stop contributing to the main spaces and confine their activities to the resolution of disputes only? In case, your answer is No, please enlighten me on how would you continue to enrich the main space after being elected as a member of the ArbCom? I am requesting you to kindly elaborate the exact steps that you propose to take to continue to be active as a contributor to the main space. Please also share with the community the names of the ArbCom members who are most active and who are least active in main spaces in your assessment. I request you to please share the names to understand the level which you feel are acceptable. I do understand that the acceptable level would differ from editor to editor.
 * No, I don't see any reason why those on Arbcom should stop editing. As to how I would continue, I've never had long-term plans for what I edit; I tend to write about subjects that happen to catch my eye and can be researched on Factiva. That's unlikely to change, so I can't give you any 'exact steps'. When I have time, energy and interest, I'll continue editing as I always have.
 * As for the current Arbcom, they, like all of us, are volunteers. The "acceptable level" of editing for any Wikipedian is any number greater than or equal to zero. Those on the Arbcom have obviously accepted an obligation to spend time working on the Committee, but nothing requires them to do any work outside that. I don't feel how much time the Arbcom members spend on non-Arbcom work is relevant; they're all free to make their choice.
 * Do you believe that to resolve disputes relating to contents, domain knowledge of the contents are secondary? Thus, for example, a dispute relating to the contents of a particular page may be resolved by reference to the materials available within English Wikipedia? Or, the ArbCom members are expected to make themselves familiar with the issues involved by actually making references to the citations and references available within and outside English Wikipedia?
 * The Arbcom doesn't do disputes relating to the contents of a particular page; the Arbcom looks at the conduct of editors above all. However, I can imagine cases where editors were accused of misrepresenting sources, in which case the Arbcom might have to check the sources themselves, but I don't believe it would be necessary in every case. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Regards. --Bhadani 13:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine. Thank you. --Bhadani 20:01, 17 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)
 * Probably the worst initial judgement I made was on the Iain Lee/Clive Bull fiasco which started in March. It started out with a large number of IPs and accounts claiming that Lee had come out as gay on the radio - my first assumption was that they were new to Wikipedia. In what's probably the stupidest thing I've yet done here, at one point I re-included the claim. I was quickly put right, and tried to make up for it by keeping a closer eye on the article, and blocking a couple of impersonators of genuine editors. Unfortunately, the sock farm then downscaled to revert warring on Clive Bull, which ended up fully protected while a Checkuser on the socks was requested. Despite the fact that every established editor called to the article was against the sock farm, I didn't have the confidence to call their bluff and felt that I had to assume that the accounts might actually be different people, and their changes, not being obvious vandalism, were in good faith. When the Checkuser went unanswered, I finally did what I should have done in the first place, i.e. after checking on WP:ANI, I blocked them all and started reverting them on sight.
 * I can only plead inexperience - certainly I have far less time for trolls now as a result, and WP:V is not something I'd let slip by anymore. It came up in my RfA, which happened when the sock farm was still active, but didn't lead anyone to oppose, so I think I'm forgiven. The LBC radio station appears to be the impetus for a lot of vandalism - the first time I ever encountered it was on Weetabix Minis back in January, and I believe it's responsible for the current briefs trolling even now - I often find myself reverting their deletion review nominations on sight because other users mistake them as good-faith.
 * Ugh, answering that was unpleasant. I truly didn't want to relive that cock-up, but I guess I can't apply to be an Arbitrator without being honest :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:30, 17 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?
 * As in an error of judgement on my part? Generally, if I become certain I've made an error, the only honest thing possible is to reverse whatever I've done. If I'd blocked someone wrongly, for example, that's what I'd do (and have done in the past). On the other hand, there are situations where, rather than immediately about face and risk flip-flopping, it's better to take a step back and rethink the issue. In discussions, it may be better to abstain for a while until the situation has become clearer, rather than immediately switch from 'keep' to 'delete' or 'support' to 'oppose'.

2) If a decision of yours, while technically a correct one, would knowingly be unpopular en masse, how would you present your decision?
 * What probably matters most is whether my decision would be overturned. If the opposition was sufficiently strong that, right or wrong, I could be certain of having my decision reversed, making the "unpopular but right" decision would be pointless posturing. It would be more productive to look at how the right decision could be made in the near future without provoking anger; for example, the result of an AfD can always be reviewed by Deletion Review or another AfD. If "en masse" simply meant "a large number of users", however, with a large number of users also supporting the right decision, then I would have no hesitation in making it.

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


 * WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are the cornerstones of what we're about; without any one of them, we wouldn't be an encyclopaedia. However, they arguably rank second equal to WP:C, because if we stopped being an encyclopaedia it wouldn't necessarily result in us getting into legal difficulties, unlike if we became cavalier about copyright.
 * WP:BLP becomes next; with the point established that articles must be verified and neutral, we then have to consider where this is most important, and it's clearly articles about living persons. We shouldn't just be concerned for our welfare if we get articles about living persons wrong, we have a responsibility to the subject as well.
 * WP:RS descends from WP:V, so I'd say it comes next. The principle that we need reliable sources is of course essential, but it's covered in WP:V; in a perfect world its statement that we need "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" would be enough. WP:RS is still needed to expand on this point, however, by explaining more clearly the issues surrounding books, blogs, biased sources, etc.
 * Likewise, WP:N descends from WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. It's one of the trickiest areas to pin down, as attested to by the very large (and growing) collection of specific notability guidelines (WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO etc), proposals for notability guidelines and failed proposals for notability guidelines. So I'm putting it last, not because it's unimportant, but because the encyclopaedia would be least likely to be compromised if it vanished down a hole; editors would still almost certainly continue to use common sense when deciding whether a subject merits an encyclopaedia article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Ideogram
Please describe a recent ArbCom decision that you feel was handled well and why. Please describe a recent ArbCom decision that you would have handled differently. --Ideogram 01:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of Arbcom cases are, in my opinion, handled well. Requests for arbitration/MONGO is one that stands out to me, which I've already covered above, so to avoid repetition I'll mention Requests for arbitration/Giano. I think the sensitivity with which it was handled was more important than, say, enacting some of the more 'pro-active' remedies that can be found in that case's Workshop. Some of those remedies would arguably not have been unjustified if the Arbcom had passed them, but we haven't lost anything by not passing them. Because I don't like going on about unfortunate incidents that are over and done with, especially behind the involved parties' backs in some cases, I won't be specific about which remedies I mean, but will clarify by email if anyone wants.
 * As for a case I would have handled differently, I would have moved to reject Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark. What happened there was that the case went on for a month, people worked on the workshop and the evidence and much discussion took place, and in the end, he was banned for a year. Then the block went back to indefinite after he started vandalising again, efficiently demonstrating that any notion that he had changed was balls. I don't see what point of that was productive - not only was Aardvark someone who, if he had been unblocked, several editors would be within their rights to refuse point-black to ever work with him, but he also spent his time after he was banned helping to run a site that owes much of its raison d'être to organising the harrassment of Wikipedians. I didn't see the point of considering unblocking someone like that, even in a year's time with probation - and I am aware that Aardvark had a previous good history, but it didn't come close for me to balancing his actions leading up to his indefinite block(s) and Arbitration case. There may be a "hindsight is 20/20" issue here, but I can assure you that my position hasn't changed since the case went before Arbcom in the first place. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:31, 21 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.
 * This sounds like a question about a specific personal experience only with the personal experience taken out. The answer to both those questions is "neither" - the most important thing is neither "discipline" nor policy but the good of the encyclopaedia. That's a vague answer, but the best answer I can give to an "A or B" question where A and B are both wrong, and when I get the impression this question is trying to lead me into passing judgement on a situation I'm not being told about. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought you'd prefer a more abstract question. If you want to look at the specifics of my particular case, you can take a look at WP:ANI#Unjust block and reply about it there or in my user talk. Regards, --Sugaar 22:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from David Mestel
Where do you see yourself on the spectrum between process wonks and rabid snowmen? David Mestel(Talk) 20:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see myself as further away from being a snowman as others might expect. WP:SNOW is one of the most frequently-abused policies; it should be used to justify not starting new processes when we already know the outcome; for example, deletion review not undeleting an article for articles for deletion when it's clearly going to be deleted. Unfortunately, you occasionally see existing discussions being closed early per 'WP:SNOW' for no apparent reason, which then end up on deletion review or similar fora. There's rarely any reason to close a discussion early; if you want to close an AfD, go work on the backlog. If there's no AfD backlog, go find something else to do. This doesn't apply with articles that fall under WP:CSD A7, for example, but even then WP:SNOW should not be cited, as it's a controversial essay and distracts from the much better case for deletion made by WP:CSD.
 * I think both rabid snowmen and process wonks are often jointly responsible for wasting people's time; the snowmen pitch the ball and the wonks knock it out of the park. Myself, on the process spectrum I would probably stand slightly white of centre - most complaints that rely solely on the words 'out of process' and not, for example, on the words 'reliable sources' or 'new compelling arguments' are unlikely to get much sympathy from me. If people see me as more of a snowman than I do, it's probably because you only notice process when it goes wrong. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Anomo
1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Anyone on Wikipedia long enough to have a realistic chance in an Arbcom election will have shown whether they have the emotional and mental maturity required without needing to set an age limit.

2. I have read on several websites (they even gave links to block logs) of Wikipedia admins who do things like indefinitely blocking accounts who have not edited for months, there was no CheckUser anything, no reports, and the admin didn't give any reason, just put personal attacks as the block reason (e.g. saying "troll"). Basically such cases seem done beyond punative, but just out of bullying. I saw at least ten of these, but so far I can only find one here. I don't feel like digging for hours, as I just want to ask your opinion of whether you support or oppose such admin activity because it's clear most support it. Anomo 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a troubling case which shows that admins may be overzealous in using the block button. Or not. If you've got any cases of admins blocking users who aren't indefensible trolls, feel free to bring them up.

3. What is your view on the current policy often called "kicking them while they're down" of deleting the user and talk pages of people who are blocked? Anomo 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Often called by whom? That aside, there's no reason to retain old user and talk pages of indefinitely blocked users (other than prurience). Indeed, it's usually a courtesy to the blocked user. More than one blocked user has complained of his pages giving his name a bad impression when searched for on Google, where Wikipedia pages - even userpages - usually appear very high up.

4. What is your view on the practice on Wikipedia where a person blanks out text on talk pages because the text mentioned something wrong the person did or defeated them in an argument? The text blanked usually has no reason given. When there is a reason given, it's only a fake reason. In rare cases, the text is not blanked, but the entire talk page is archived including discussions hours old, blanking it out. Anomo 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Blanking article talk pages is vandalism and should be reverted. However, users are allowed to archive talk pages at any time, and complaining about the removal of recent discussions is frequently beating a dead horse. If the issue hasn't been resolved, bring it up again. If the issue is stale, drop it.

5. What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them? Anomo 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If the user talk page is being used for nothing but abuse (especially to waste time of admins looking at unblock requests), then it should be protected. There is no need to waste our time hand-wringing over whether we're gagging someone if they're not saying anything that could conceivably lead to their unblocking. The blocked user can still email any administrator or Arbitrator if they decide they want to appeal their block civilly.

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 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't. I have seen no reason to believe that Arbcom favours admins. Inasmuch as most preventative action is taken against non-admins rather than admins, it's because a) non-admins make up the majority of users on Wikipedia and b) being elected admin requires showing the civility and good faith that means you're less likely to indulge in the sort of behaviour that results in Arbcom cases. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:39, 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 23:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The experience and good judgement necessary to make the right decisions and the confidence to put them forward. (Actually, that's not a sentence, but never mind.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:46, 2 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 20:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't intending to participate in the voting - I think, as you say, it would only cause unnecessary friction. However, while I won't comment directly on anyone's candidacy for the same reason I'm not going to vote, I'm not going to promise not to comment on the other candidates during normal Wikipedia business. That is, I'm not going to check the list of 37 (and growing) candidates every time I see someone saying or doing something I disagree with. I think the chance of any serious candidates for the Arbcom being juvenile enough to get into flamewars with each other is almost non-existent, so I don't think we need to be careful around other candidates while the election is ongoing. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'd say that you ultimately reserve the right to excercise your vote. It should be already understood by all respected and high-esteemed candidates that by the end of this election, there should be no hard feelings regardless of supports or opposes. As from my observations at the January elections, hard feelings usually come not from the votes, but from the comments that are associated with the votes. Henceforth, I think restraining to comment in your votes is the best way to go. Good luck and best regards, Mailer Diablo 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Zouavman Le Zouave
Hi, here are my questions ^^


 * 1) What are your musical tastes? Who are your favorite artists? What genres do you prefer? What sub-genres do you prefer?
 * 2) How much do you know about music? Do you play any instruments? Do you read music?
 * 3) What would be your musical philosophy? How do you describe good music in a general way?
 * 4) What are the things you wouldn't call music?
 * 5) What artists/genres/sub-genres do you despise the most?

Thank you in advance for answering these questions.

--Zouavman Le Zouave 21:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think this is completely irrelevant to the Arbcom, but I like it when people ask my opinion about things, so I'm going to answer anyway :-)
 * I can like any music that a) doesn't sound all the same (i.e. not modern R&B) and b) has some energy behind it (i.e. not tedious folksy acoustic plonking). Most of my music is European heavy metal such as Rammstein, Nightwish and Evereve, but I'm currently getting into bhangra and other desi music - mainly the fusion of hip-hop with Indian beats, such as Hunterz, Swami, Panjabi Hit Squad et al.
 * I can't play any instrument, read sheet music, or anything. And I'm glad I can't. People who can play music have told me that ever since they learnt how to play guitar or whatever, they can't listen to rock without analysing how the bass player's doing. I'm happy remaining on the outside.
 * I think it's impossible to pin down good music. If you really want to know how I feel about music, get hold of Lacrimosa's Kyrie and Jerry Lee Lewis' Great Balls of Fire. The former makes me stop in my tracks every single time as every hair on my skin stands on end, and as for the latter, I can't listen to it without wanting to dance. And there's no way I can explain why I think both tracks are incredible music even though they're completely different.
 * Almost nothing. The earliest music was basically hitting some rudimentary drums over and over and yelling, and as far as I'm concerned that's still music. But, moving onto the last question...
 * ...any music that is basically just entirely produced on a computer is, in my opinion, not really music. It'll do for lift musak and car adverts, but I can't understand how anyone can listen to it or dance to it without getting bored. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from JoshuaZ
Some users have expressed opposition to your candidacy based on your statement that the ArbCom should get to the "root" of problems. Could you expand on what precisely you mean by and discuss your logic behind this? Thanks. JoshuaZ 01:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, actually I thought my examples had covered it. But basically, I think that the Arbcom will not be able to solve all disputes just by giving individual editors bans, probations, paroles et al. Some cases will require more far-reaching remedies, or we'll see more articles and editors returning to Arbcom twice or even three times. The examples I referred to is that of explicitly prohibiting links to Encyclopedia Dramatica. If you want to see what finally convinced me of the necessity of this sort of remedy, see Jimbo's talk page, specficially where I asked for an example of a valid link, and was given a link that supposedly added to avoid weasel words, but didn't add much more than 'lol we said fuck', and that later had a picture added of a Photoshopped woman having sausages stuffed into her intimate orifices while in an impossibly contorted position in a pigsty. (The relevant page is linked from Jimbo's archive for those who aren't satisfied by my description.) Anyone who thinks that adds to the encyclopaedia needs their head examined, and anyone who thinks that it's worth linking a page and then checking it every day to see if ED's denizens have decided to add that sort of picture needs to reconsider their priorities.
 * If I didn't trust Arbcom members' and candidates' judgement enough, then I wouldn't support the Arbitration Committee having the power to make such decisions. The fact is that I do, but I'm not at all put out if not everyone agrees. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up question if you don't mind: You referenced in your statement what Phil said about the ArbCom getting its hands dirty. However, Phil specifically included "content disputes" on his list of things that the ArbCom should look at. Would you include them?JoshuaZ 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, for reasons I've expressed above. (Briefly; because we have thousands of edits a day, and approx. ten Arbcom decisions a month; the Arbcom can't and shouldn't try to directly control the editing of article content.) Phil said that the Arbcom's hand-dirtying may "involve looking at content", which I agree with to a certian extent - neutral point of view, biographies of living persons and verifiability are all policies that to a certain extent relate to content, but it shouldn't be taboo for the Arbcom to consider them (examples: Bowling for Columbine, Rachel Marsden). Those examples show that considering editors' behaviour in respect to these policies does not mean interfering directly with article content.
 * He also mentioned "trying to sort out the increasingly tangled knots of essays, guidelines, policy, and instruction creep", which I most definitely agree with. There are essays like WP:SPADE which split my mind in two - obviously we shouldn't wikilawyer over calling a spade a spade, but what sort of community are we if we need a page to tell us that?
 * But perhaps I'm overreacting. WP:SPADE is an essay, not a policy, so, per WP:NOTPOLICY, it can't be cited it as if it were policy. Except, of course, that WP:NOTPOLICY is itself not a policy :-). And so on. --Sam Blanning(talk) 04:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from TheronJ
1. You wrote in your candidate statement that you approve of "bold" Arb Comm remedies where necessary and offer the Arb Comm decision banning links to Encyclopedia Dramatica as one example. What do you feel are the limits to Arb Comm's ability to craft such bold remedies? Specifically, is there a role for the community in determining the scope of Arb Comm's authority, or is that scope limited only by Arb Comm's good judgment and any Office Actions?
 * The main limit should always be interfering directly in the editing of articles and policies (including their status), for reasons expressed above. As for the role of community, Jimbo remains the final court of appeal, and if Arbcom did make a howler of a decision and there was sufficient community protest, I'm sure he'd reverse it. In the case of ED, there was such a request on his talk page "Sometimes Arbcom gets it wrong", but there clearly wasn't either broad community support or particularly good reason to overturn it.
 * So essentially I'm saying that there is little role for the community in determining the scope of Arbcom's authority, apart from to appeal to Jimbo, which may disquiet some; but really, the whole point of Arbcom is that it has the final say. Arbcom cases attract the wiki equivalent of a lot of publicity, but a very small fraction of articles have been directly affected by Arbcom cases (though the fact that we have the Arbcom strengthens policy on all articles).
 * Plus, if the community doesn't want arbitrators who are willing to think outside the box in the way I've described, they can oppose them during these elections - although it's been pointed out to me on my talk page that when it came to my opinions on the subject, I could always have just kept my mouth shut :-).

2. Based on your background, any 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 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's very likely that I'd have to recuse. I don't edit many articles that are heavily edited by others and/or are potentially controversial subjects, and as an Arbiter I would be careful of involving myself in disputes that might go to Arbcom later. Common sense would apply when it came to my recusal; if I was clearly involved with the editor(s) or article(s) in question to the extent that either my judgement would be clouded, or it would appear to the majority of others that it would be, to the extent that they couldn't have confidence in my ability to act independently, I'd recuse. I'd anticipate recusing myself in such cases, if any ever came up, though I'd always consider any request to do so carefully, and consult with my fellow Arbiters whether it would be the right thing to do. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Merlinme
You refer in your statement to the Enyclopedia Dramatica decision. Where do you stand on the indefinite ban of Rootology?

Thanks, --Merlinme 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Conspiring to reveal editors' personally identifying information including IP address and place of work, using an external site to harrass editors, both here and in his charmingly-named 'Fuckface' incarnation on that site, sockpuppetry, outright lying, and some spectacular bridge-burning shortly before he was blocked. (All this is viewable at Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Evidence and Special:Contributions/Rootology.) Although at the time, before I read the Evidence page, I was slightly surprised by the proposal (only mainly having seen him at WP:DRV and in passing in a few other places), once I had I didn't see any other option. Nothing less than a ban would have sufficed, and a time-limited ban would have been pointless - if he's still spending his time at ED a year or even more so from now, then it would still be impossible for people to work with him here in good faith.
 * Note that he was blocked indefinitely before the Arbcom decision went through, making it essentially a community ban as no-one overturned it, which any admin could have done until the Arbcom case closed - and I'm not surprised, because I've not seen anything significant on the other side of the ledger, anything that would complete the sentence "Rootology should be unblocked so he can continue his good work on -".
 * Editors cannot feel that they are in a safe environment, in a community which cares about them, if we allow people like Rootology to play sick games with them. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:06, 7 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".
 * Have I made a stated commitment to the Arbcom process? I'm sure with all my work, including the occasional commenting on Arbcom cases, I'd continue much as before, but I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean by commitment.

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]]?
 * I think it strikes the right balance between the community's need for Arbitrators it has faith in, and Jimbo's need to choose people he trusts with doing the job that used to be his (until Wikipedia became too big for one Jimbo to do it). I won't comment directly on any candidates, but I would be happy to work with any of the candidates who are going to achieve the necessary level of support.
 * The campaign banners I don't like, but that's as far my opinion goes. I like them as parody, but people adding them to their userpages to show who they support is a bit too political for my tastes. This isn't a presidential-style election, after all - we can vote for as many people as we like. I don't think there is such a thing as a "campaign" - politicians tell people to vote for them, but doing that here - whether in this election, or on RfA, AfD or anywhere else - is strongly discouraged.

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.
 * The Iain Lee fiasco I mentioned above. I took too long in bringing Lou franklin to Arbcom, went into unnecessary detail on the Evidence page, and should in fact have just asked for a community ban (though I'm not sure whether that's the benefit of hindsight, or whether the concept of community banning wasn't as accepted then as it is now). And I'm fairly sure there are times I've been unnecessarily flippant or curt - I can't be more specific than that because I don't remember specific examples, and I still consider my civility above average. In my opinion, I've never done anything significantly bad that I haven't learnt from and tried to compensate for.

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.
 * Whenever I've done something that bad I've apologised at the time.

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.
 * To some extent, we have acquired a bigger stick over the past months; we're much less tolerant of problems in biographies of living persons, we're focusing more on the importance of policy in venues like AfD, and we've become more confident in our ability to deal with problem users without resorting to Arbcom. All of this has just made it easier for us to carry on our job of building the encyclopaedia, and I haven't seen any bad behaviour that could be attributed to it. We've always been very accomodating of users who cause problems; when we give up on helping them become productive editors and resort to withdrawing the privilege to edit, I can say with confidence that it really is not for want of understanding or effort. So I think we'd have to go quite far before our "stick" got big enough to actually provoke people.

6. What, exactly do you want do on Wikipedia? Why did you come here, and why did you stay for more than a minute? What's fun for you here? What makes you happy here? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.
 * I want to serve Wikipedia to the best of my ability, in any area in which a) I'm capable and b) I enjoy doing, which is quite a lot of them. I'm sure most of us came here for the same reasons; because we wanted to learn about something, and personally, I kept returning because I found the ability to browse by clicking on wikilinks and ending up somewhere random like exploding whale addictive. Of course, that's as a reader; I read Wikipedia on-and-off for several weeks before starting to experiment with editing. What makes me happy is that I'm helping people experience the benefits of a free, usually accurate encyclopaedia of wider scope than any other - and I'm helping myself as well, because editing Wikipedia doesn't stop me reading it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:38, 7 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 10:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I like it. For a properly comprehensive review you'd need to ask a specialist or a regular featured article candidate reviewer rather than someone running for a position that shouldn't involve directly commenting on content, but to me it looks well-written, generally verified, and neutral (in particular the section on conspiracy theories is mercifully short in terms of due weight, though our extent of coverage elsewhere has come under question). I noticed a couple of odd bits that needed verification - the bit about Jo Moore (which was slightly inaccurate as well as unverified) and something about nine people having been killed in hate crimes as a result, the former of which I fixed myself and the latter I've raised on the talk page.
 * Of course, as you say it's a controversial article and there are some disputes going on on the talk page, but I've seen much worse on articles of this type. A request for mediation was rejected recently, but due to not all partcipants agreeing in the 7-day time period (perhaps too many were listed?), rather than a complete breakdown in relations. As a potential arbitrator (I'd thank you for your confidence in calling me a "future arbitrator", only you said it to the other candidates too :-)), I would err on the side of optimism and hope that the Arbcom wouldn't have to look at it any time soon. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Zoe
What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel that MONGO's use of admin tools during content disputes in which he is involved (including threats to use admin tools, which I consider almost equally bad) cross the line. There are entries in his admin log, such as the Occam's Razor incident, which are unjustifiable whichever way you look at them. Though there are, as has been pointed out, far, far more benefical actions.


 * The trouble here is that a lot of people (I've been flicking through some of the mailing list discussion on this subject) seem to be saying that MONGO is at least partially justified in his actions because he's protecting the encyclopaedia by standing fast against conspiracy nonsense. I agree without reservation that a gigantic load of tosh is spewed about 9/11, which when we cover it we need to keep strictly contained inside due weight. The thing is, whether he's defending against nonsense or not is a content issue. When asked whether Arbcom should make judgements based on content, the community almost unanimously says "no", but now we have a content issue being used as a defence for apparently inappropriate conduct, and because the majority of sane people agree with MONGO's stance in the content dispute, some appear to be implying that the Arbcom need to consider it as a defence despite its basis in content. The community's justified aversion to content judgements is starting to look a bit like a moth-eaten shirt; stand far enough away from someone wearing it and it looks whole, but get closer up and the holes appear.


 * That said, I don't feel desysopping is justified. Fred Bauder noted that he may immediately reapply for adminship, but in the same sentence that he had lost community support; even apart from that, there is a distinctive lack of trust at RfA given to desysopped administrators, and they have a mountain to climb to get it back. With everything that's happened, including MONGO currently considering leaving for good, let's face it; desysopping would be permanent. And I don't believe that MONGO losing adminship would make Wikipedia a better place.


 * Fred Bauder offered 'administrative parole', allowing him to be blocked for misuse of admin tools. This has no support from the other Arbitrators, and I think it's understandable - blocking from editing because of administrative actions seems like punishment rather than prevention, and a punishment not fitting the crime. I think that blocked admins are actually still able to use their admin tools - I've never been blocked myself and am not inclined to violate the prohibition on self-blocking to test it, so I'm open to correction.


 * I'm going to suggest a different intermediate remedy, which I'm going to post on the Workshop page. MONGO is banned from taking any administrative action on articles relating to the September 11th attacks, to be interpreted broadly to include pages on conspiracy theories, biographies on persons significant in relation to the attacks (including conspiracy theorists), etc. Blocks for blatant vandalism are excluded from this definition. Should he take such action, the Arbitration Committee will consider a motion under WP:RFAR's "Motions in prior cases" section; if MONGO is found to have violated his administrative ban, he will be desysopped.


 * Unlike Fred Bauder's parole it relates misuse of administrative tools directly to a restriction on those tools and the action taken for violating that restriction. It's somewhat novel, and has the disadvantage of requiring follow-up by the Arbcom to enact, but as use of admin tools can't be as flexibly restricted as editing, I can't think of another remedy right now that would be proportionate and suitable. This is as close as I can think of to an equivalent of how tendentious editing may be remedied by a ban from editing certain articles, backed up by blocks on editing if violated. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)