Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Phil Sandifer/Questions for the candidate

This user has kinda sorta maybe left Wikipedia except he's an indecisive drama queen and can't really commit to it.

Questions from Majorly
These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)


 * 1) How do you think that your personality would make you a good arbitrator?
 * 2) Do you have any experience in real life that could relate to activities arbitrators have to deal with?

Thanks for your time.  Majorly  (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I think that the arbitration committee works best with a decent spread of people, and so it should be noted that this answer is *not* "what personality should an arbitrator have." That said, I think I'm relatively impatient with bullshit, call a spade a spade, and tend to act and speak relatively directly. I am also a very big picture person, which is, I think, a very important trait for an arbitrator given the degree to which arbcom decisions can cause seismic shifts in policy (c.f. the attack sites issue).
 * 2) I've been teaching college freshmen off and on for three and a half years now. This engenders a great deal of skill at detecting bullshit. Furthermore, my work as a PhD student in English focusing on, among other things, new media gives me what I think is a valuable perspective in looking at larger issues facing Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 20:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern
My questions are kind of nitty-gritty, but I'm not looking for really specific answers as much as trying to see your thought process and approaches to the issues.

1. What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate?

2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?

3. When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?

5. Two recent cases, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, were dismissed with no decision made after the Committee had been unable to come to a decision concerning wrongdoing or sanctions. In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Wikipedia. Now, consider a similar situation in which the Committee cannot agree on finding concerning user conduct or on appropriate sanctions, but in which the case issues are clearly current. What should be done in such a case?

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize if my answers are a touch unsatisfying - quite the opposite of "grim and gritty," I honestly find several of your questions a bit too vague to answer with the sort of specificity you're asking for.


 * 1) I honestly don't know how to answer this one in the general case. Edit warriors are a serious problem, and the committee is expected by the community to find ways of stopping edit wars. But the particulars of what will and will not be the ideal solution in a given case are just that - particular. In general, though, I favor being as narrow and limited in judgments as will solve the problem - shorter, more limited prohibitions are preferable to sweeping ones, assuming both get the job done.
 * 2) See above, really. Incivility is a particularly odd issue, given that I think Wikipedia suffered (and I'll admit to having been guilty of it) a shift towards a more uncivil tone over time. I know Jimbo is looking to return to a more civil discourse, and presumably the arbcom would be expected to be a part of that shift. But how best to do that without being heavy handed is a difficult issue.
 * 3) Again, this is far too broad. In the case cited, however, I think the temporary desysopping was a very prudent measure - admin abuse is a problem that needs to be tackled when it happens, but we also have to remember that admins are trusted and established users, and ought extend them opportunities for reform, just as we do other users.
 * 4) Given that community bans can explicitly be appealed to the arbcom, whenever they're asked to. Consideration, of course, does not mean granting the appeal - they should overturn the ban in the extremely unlikely event that the community is clearly in error. But the nature of Wikipedia's community is that consensus rarely forms for truly bad positions. That said, the arbcom is intended as a check on this process.
 * 5) In such a case, ideally, the committee would focus on the grounds on which it can come to an agreement and issue a narrower than ideal ruling. If this is not possible, the case should be closed without result - sometimes no consensus exists on the arbitrator level, and we are left with a problem. The arbitration committee is fallible, and cannot be expected to have a universal solution available. Phil Sandifer 20:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In case this wasn't clear, my questions are meant to be general, not specific. I'm looking for the general thoughts on what principles you think important when dealing with the issues ArbCom must deal with. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand - I just don't think there are general case rules of the sort you're describing. I'm happy to answer more pointed hypotheticals or go over an existing case with detailed reasoning so you can get a sense of my process that way, but it's not accurate to say that I have pre-existing tests and criteria for these things. Phil Sandifer 13:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ali'i
Answer or not, it's no biggy:


 * Does the arbitration committe make policy or interpret policy? Should they do the other?

Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 19:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As a dyed-in-the-wool postmodernist, I have to challenge the fundamental principle of your question. Policy is just words on a screen. Its practical result - actions on Wikipedia - always come from interpretations of those words. All policy interpretation, therefore, makes policy inasmuch as it makes a practical implementation of the policy.


 * If the question you meant to ask, however, was "do new policy initiatives come from the community or the arbcom," the answer is "the community." Phil Sandifer 20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So that's a mu? :-) Okay, then my new question is, What is your take on committee burnout? Why are they active for a month or two, then stop caring? Is it a flaw in the arbitrator, or in the process? Also, Why do so many arbitrators stop doing digging, and simply show up to vote on (mostly Kirill's or Fred's) proposed decisions? In what ways would you be different? Mahalo nui, Phil. --Ali&#39;i 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A flaw in the process, from my conversations with arbitrators - the job is ridiculously thankless. With Fred (thus far) not running, the need for people who will write proposed decisions is going to be even higher. My intention as an arbitrator is to write proposals, not simply vote. Phil Sandifer 21:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wanderer57
Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?


 * (Just to be clear. Some candidates wondered if my question was "aimed at them". I'm asking all candidates the same generic question; it is not aimed at anyone.)

Thanks, Wanderer57 19:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a scale in mind for this rating? Phil Sandifer 20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't ask with a scale in mind, but how about this. A 5 step scale is probably enough.  Please add more if these don't cover.  Wanderer57 20:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Very fair process.


 * Usually fair but there are exceptions.


 * Fifty-fifty in terms of fairness.


 * Significant number of unfair RfC's.


 * Usually unfair.


 * Hm. I'm going to have to follow the previous question and go with mu here - the RfC process is so toothless that I have trouble thinking of it in terms of "the accused." It seems to me mostly to be a process to inform somebody that they are pissing a lot of people off, and that arbitration exists down the line for them if this continues. As such, it functions adequately. Phil Sandifer 22:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Question Doc
Are you a masochist?--Docg 22:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I work OTRS and deal with BLPs. You tell me. :) Phil Sandifer 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ultraexactzz
Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.

Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.

Needless to say, it did not go well.

However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ Claims~ Evidence 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Perspective. It is important to recognize both the utter powerlessness of the arbcom (as the community can and will reject overreaching rulings) and the importance of making rulings that do not damage the larger project - a challenge given that nobody has read even most of Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 23:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from WJBscribe
A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer. Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Wikipedia in three years. Should there be a mechanism by which the Community can recall an arbitrator in whose judgment it loses confidence? Do you have any thoughts as to what form that mechanism should take?
 * 2) ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Wikipedia. Would you advocate withdrawing the access in the case of someone someone who failed to make sufficient use of it? If yes, what sort of activity level would you say is required?
 * 3) Where the Community finds itself unable to reach a consensus on the formulation of a given policy, do you think ArbCom has a role to play in determining that policy?


 * 1) Some such mechanism seems useful in principle, but I have never seen a circumstance where it would be valuable in practice - we've never had a serially rouge arbitrator. Should such a circumstance actually arise, I imagine that the community and Jimbo would figure something out, and I tend to think that solving problems when they actually arise is wiser than anticipating them.
 * 2) I tend not to like removing powers and privileges from people absent an active reason for doing so, and I would certainly resist a quota system.
 * 3) I answered a similar question about interpreting vs making policy a few sections above - Ali'i's section, I believe. Feel free to ask any follow-ups if that doesn't get to the essence of your question, though. Phil Sandifer 23:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This doesn't seem to me like a question relevant to the arbcom, given that they do not intervene in content disputes. That said, it seems to me like the scientific point of view, when presented as "mainstream scientists believe X" (in accordance with NPOV) is suitably persuasive. Phil Sandifer 03:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question 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.  Thank you, —  xaosflux  Talk 04:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't given it much thought, and certainly haven't looked at any data as to how well the existing pool is suiting need. In the case of Checkuser, I think it's important to maintain a good selection of current arbitrators with the power. I tend to think that anybody elected to arbcom is eligible for the bit, but that not everybody needs it. In the case of Oversight, I've seen no evidence that wider distribution of the power is necessary, but I honestly don't know. Phil Sandifer 15:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from I

 * 1) What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committee? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? I (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Other than the standard burnout and slowness that grips the committee in the latter part of every year, I do not see any substantial flaws with the present system. Phil Sandifer 03:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Pixelface
Hello Mr. Sandifer. I have a few questions.


 * 1) Do you feel your userpage, which was written September 16, 2006, accurately expresses your currently held beliefs?
 * 2) On your userpage you say you stopped "worrying about what all the policy pages say today." How do you think this outlook will affect your view of arbitration policy in general? Do you think this outlook will affect your ability to make statements on Principles during committee deliberations?
 * 3) On your userpage, you say "Lord knows the rules are making me nervous and depressed." Do you think this will affect your ability to decide cases according to the rules set forth in the arbitration policy?
 * 4) On your userpage, you say "Note that this means that if you cite a policy page to me and expect me to carefully divine the meaning of section 14, paragraph 3, clause 2 of it, odds are I'll just say "Yeah, but what's wrong with what I'm doing?"" Can we take this to mean that you will leave statements regarding Principles to other members of the committee?
 * 5) On your userpage, you admit to adhere to the trifecta principles a) remain neutral b) don't be a dick c) ignore all rules. Do you think statements such as "Christ. Don't be stupid." adhere to those principles? Do you think such statements are helpful for resolving disputes? Do you think similar statements would be appropriate during committee deliberations?
 * 6) You have said "No amount of clarifying policies will stop a rules lawyer hell-bent on getting his or her way". Would statements like this help you come to a consensus on Remedies with the other committee members?
 * 7) In your candidate statement you say "I lack a particular or burning desire to be an arbitrator (my plate being reasonably full as it stands), but I am willing to do the job, and thus feel obliged to put my name forward." Arbitrators serve three-year terms. Do you think it's likely you will resign before your three-year term is over?

Thank you. --Pixelface 07:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Man. Some of those are a bit leading, no?


 * Not entirely. I never kept the process blog, and my continuing interest in actually fixing the broken policy has necessitated a greater knowledge of it than I would like. I still have no idea what templates are what, though. Phil Sandifer 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the things on the rules list you link to require careful exegesis of policy pages - and no wonder. The arbcom has historically been deeply skeptical of close-reading of the rules. That is why the section in question is called "principles," not "relevant policy." What matters is the intent much more than the particular wording.
 * I doubt it - a quick glance at those rules shows that they are about as common sense as they come - exactly the rules I would expect to exist. Which makes sense, as the arbcom has historically been very anti-processcruft. Phil Sandifer 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Principles are not about hair-splitting.
 * You don't seem to want an answer to this question as much as you want an opportunity to grandstand a moment where I called one of your policy initiatives utter garbage. The theatrical moment thus accomplished, we can move on, I trust? (btw, as a rhetorical point, that would have been a better 1st or last question.)
 * I'm not sure I understand the question. Certainly the committee has historically taken a very dim view of rules-lawyering.
 * I would currently expect to tender my resignation in December of 2008, yes. This seems to me reasonable - three year terms are frankly too long. That may change over the course of the year if I feel that I can be effective for longer. I do not intend to resign at any time such that I would leave a vacancy that could not be filled by an election. Phil Sandifer 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. If you could, could you show your answers numbering 1 through 7 for clarification? --Pixelface 06:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Phil Sandifer 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Revolving Bugbear
In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:

The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear  16:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Legal threats should not be evaluated by the arbcom except inasmuch as making legal threats on the wiki is forbidden (as opposed to warning of possible legal action - it is not a problem to identify a statement as libelous. It is a problem to say "I will sue you for this libel.") They are a Foundation issue, and the arbcom is not the body that steps in here. In practice, these are usually handled through OTRS (I've done a few myself, actually.) Phil Sandifer 16:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Circuit Judge

 * 1) Are you of the opinion that users standing or applying for positions of trust/authority (Arb, Sysop, Crat...) should a}list all previous names under which they have contributed to Wikipedia - particularly username changes; and b}disclose their real-life identity? Feel free to give different answers for different positions, and please explain the thought processes behind your answers.
 * 2) Your statement claims that you are not anxious to serve, but have stood simply because you are willing. This is a common "tactic" in elections, even having reached the scripts of Yes, Minister. In YM it was satirised as essentially meaning "I really want this job". Is this the case with you? If not, why have you put so much (perfectly commendable) effort into a campaign you have no personal interest in winning?
 * 3) What is your opinion on whether outright, indisputable breaches of "content" policies such as WP:NOR, WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:CENSOR and WP:CITE should still be treated as "content disputes" and thus treated differently from outright, indisputable breaches of WP:VAND?
 * 4) Do you believe that sysops should consult with other sysops before making controversial or hard-hitting admin-actions, such as month-long blocks and protection of AfD candidates where there is a COI?
 * 5) Generally, what is your opinion on the conflict of interest policy?
 * 6) How important are "interaction" policies (WP:CIV, WP:NPA...), in your opinion, and under what circumstances is it acceptable to swear and be abusive - including swearing/abuse in edit summaries?
 * 7) How strictly should WP:IAR be interpreted? In the past, you've said that invoking this to trump the 3RR in situations like those in Q3 is not right; deletion of unsourced and speculative material is not improving or maintaining the project to the extent that IAR applies. So exactly where should the boundaries be drawn?

Thanks in advance for your time and answers; they'll make interesting reading for me!--Circuit Judge 10:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not sure if you're allowed to ignore questions, but if you are, then note that it does display a rather poor image.--Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 08:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because I've taken a day to think about them doesn't mean I'm ignoring them. Calm down. Phil Sandifer 14:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All right, my impatient spiny friend. Here we go.


 * For the most part, I would say that all major accounts used should be admitted to. That said, I'm open to a number of exceptions. I think that there is something to be said for temporary alternate accounts created to edit in peace after a stretch of wikistress. I've done it myself, with an account I actually completely forget the name of, so I can't even admit to it properly. In any case, I'm not sure that an account used entirely for making small content edits need be admitted to as such. For the most part, I want to know about anything problematic or unusual in the user's history. I don't care about other things. I generally will trust a user to make obvious the relevant things and don't really worry about it unless I find evidence of something being covered up that shouldn't have been. I do not believe that disclosing a RL identity is necessary for anything other than arbcom and OTRS due to the degree to which these positions deal with potentially sensitive legal matters.
 * I really don't want this job. My dissertation advisor would kill me if he read this page. But I am willing to do the job, and I know in the past I've had trouble finding a full slate of candidates to vote for, and I figure more options is only a good thing in an approval voting scheme. As for why I put the effort into it, I like answering questions about Wikipedia, and so the actual campaign part is quite unstressful.
 * Vandalism is bad faith. Good faith edits, however idiotic, are not vandalism. That does not mean they are not blockable, sanctionable, etc. But they are not vandalism.
 * Remembering that WP:COI is primarily about personal investment in article topics, I have trouble imagining that this is a common enough occurance to merit particular comment. In the unlikely event that an administrator is using administrative powers in a dispute surrounding a topic they are personally involved with, or against a user they know from outside of Wikipedia, the basic principles of the COI guideline would hold. But COI really is about off-wiki involvements, and you're asking this question to try to trap me on my block of you and my unprotection of Judd Bagley, which are not relevant to COI in this case, as I have no idea who you are off-wiki.
 * It's an important guideline, but it's desperately hard to enforce because it is one of the few guidelines we have that is based entirely on intention rather than action. According to the COI policy, a well-sourced NPOV edit and a piece of POV pushing crap are equivalent if there's a COI. That's very hard to enforce without an Orwellian system that monitors who users are and why they edit. In practice, then, the COI guideline exists as a recourse for people who are being problems - the more accurate phrasing of the gudeline is "If we can tell you have a COI, your COI is interfering excessively."
 * Our civility policies are important, and I will be the first to admit that I have been harsher than is warranted at times. I am not willing to say that swearing in edit summaries and comments is wrong in all cases, but on the other hand I tend to think Wikipedia should be treated as socially similar to a professional setting, and swearing should be moderated accordingly. Beyond that I am unwilling to set hard rules because I dislike hard rules.
 * I have no idea how to begin conceptualizing the idea of strict interpretation of IAR. Phil Sandifer 15:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?
 * 2) If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?
 * 3) Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer?
 * 4) How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?


 * To the extent possible, yes.
 * Where the pages have not been overrun and become unmanageable, and where it is useful to do so, yes. The problem of overrun pages has become more and more significant (even case acceptance is getting annoying with the number of "me too" comments by people. But it would be nice to have more arbitrator comment, to be sure.
 * In the formulation you're proposing, no, absolutely not. That is not to say that all instances of incivility should be treated identically in some sort of rigid way, but long-time users do not get special dispensation either. It is important to view users and cases holistically, however. There are no "minimum sentencing" requirements for the arbcom.
 * They should be enforced, for the most part, via social norms - telling people they're being incivil, asking them to stop, etc. Efficiency a la the 3RR seems doomed to disaster given the difficulty in creating a white line definition of "incivil." Phil Sandifer 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68
Have you successfully nominated any articles that you've heavily edited for Featured or Good Article status? Cla68 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, though Michel Foucault was nominated by somebody else after a push to featured article that I initiated. Phil Sandifer 03:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wikidudeman
In my experience, many larger arbitrations seem to suffer from the fact that the arbitrators do not spend as much time on examining the evidence and statements as they should be spending. Examples of problems that arise would be proposals not being used or relevant issues not even being addressed. This is probably due to the large backlog and caseload. What would you do to ensure that all arbitrations are ended efficiently and fairly and that all issues and concerns are addressed and all needed remedies met?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with part of your assertion - a large part of the delay is also caused by poorly written evidence or by a needless cacaphony of statements in the workshop, on talk pages, or on the initial case. We need a lot less "me too" statements in al of these cases, and I wish clerks would (and could) be more firm about refactoring these pages to remove redundancy.


 * That said, I'm not sure most of your question has an answer. I've certainly been disappointed by the rulings on large cases before, but I'm not willing to equate my disappointment with a failure to meet all concerns. Also, it should be noted, my understanding is that a non-trivial amount of arbcom deliberation takes place in private. I suspect that many of the seeming gaps in rulings exist because it is clear that no consensus exists among the arbitrators on what to do. Would we be better served by the debates leading to these gaps happening on-wiki? Possibly, but to do so would worsen the cacaphony mentioned above as 30 people rush to lobby the arbcom and join the debate, rendering such debates too large and too unwieldy to be followed on wiki software, which is not well-suited to use as a forum thread. Phil Sandifer 14:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Points of View: When does including "notable" points of view become problematic for NPOV?
When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?-- David  Shankbone  18:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't say I've noticed the phenomenon - can you point me to an example? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just about any political article. I think more the question is: when does it start to become a problem, even if all "sides" of a debate are accurately reflected.  As an encyclopedia, or in an effort to be one, should we be putting in spin from the political spectrum as opposed to giving the facts surrounding circumstances without the spin?  I don't have an answer, I'm simply curious about the Arb nominee's thoughts on this.  -- David  Shankbone  18:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd really want to see a specific article you feel this is happening in, just so I can get a feel for how that prose reads, how it presents things, etc. I mean, I could answer in the abstract and hypothetical, but I wouldn't be able to guarantee you that I would agree with myself in practice. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think answering in the abstract is preferred, because the moment I throw out an issue it becomes tied to that issue. Additionally, I do not raise this question with any one article in mind.  I'd prefer an abstract answer.  -- David  Shankbone  22:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took me so long to answer this. I think, for the most part, policy covers this under the undue weight provision of NPOV, which is meant to restrict weighting articles in the manner you're describing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ashley Y
If your plate is "reasonably full", and you don't have a particular desire to be an arb, how much attention will you give arbcom work? &mdash;Ashley Y 23:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The amount it takes - as I said, I would scale back my OTRS involvement to make the time. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68
So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Avruch
If you are gone why are you still answering questions here, out of curiosity? Avruch Talk 01:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As my candidate statement says, I am willing to return to be an arbitrator and would like the job. Answering questions is part of that process. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754

 * 1) What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).
 * 2) a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) own articles or c) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * 3) Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on sibling WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
 * 4) a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
 * 5) a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I think, in the HWY case, that the problems were more due to
 * 2) a) To coordinate editing efforts in a particular area so as to improve coverage across the board in that area. b) No, WP:OWN is still in place. c) we currently discourage all "enforcement" of MoS level guidelines. I do believe that WikiProjects can and should formulate standards for articles, but that those standards exist on the same level as other MoS stuff.
 * 3) I think that it is desirable that we have consistent coverage on similar areas - that is, pretty much all road articles should look the same. This should not be done on the level of imposition, though - the WikiProjects should work together to come to a consensus.
 * 4) I dislike firm definitions of canvassing, in no small part because canvassing is only really useful if we're doing numerical votes, which we should avoid.
 * 5) Rollbacks are in order, and possibly protects. Blocks are not appropriate for good faith actions. Note, though, that deliberately violating the rules in a way that goes against consensus is never done in good faith. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I did make a mistake on question 3 - it should read as follows.
 * 1) Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)

Apologies. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't substantively change my answer. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Risker
There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing. Amongst the reasons for this suggestion is to prevent parties from revising policy in a way that favours their point of view, to prevent edit wars on active policies, and to maintain a stable policy base so that users can rest assured that they are staying within policy. Do you believe that this is a good course of action for the encyclopedia? Please respond from your perspective as a prospective member of Arbcom who would be responsible for interpreting policy (but feel free to add your opinion as an editor as well). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a sub-optimal way of getting towards what I actually want, which is a controlled methodology for policy formation to parallel our methodologies for article creation (i.e. NPOV, NOR, V). But, in general, I think that a more stable set of policies that are resistant to pragmatic change and, more importantly, more open to programmatic thought is important. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blue Tie
1. Can/Should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member? --Blue Tie 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) No to both, though this does not, to my mind, rule out what might be called novel solutions, which it has long done, ranging from the very poor ideas (the "essay" remedy in the John Gohde case) to very clever ones (topic bans, and, better, topic paroles). And, as I've stated above, much of Wikipedia policy is created in its own interpretation and implementation, and there is no way for the arbcom to avoid that. The statement "the arbcom does not create policy" is not equivalent to originalism at all.
 * 2) If you mean "Do I intend to use my seat as an arbitrator to create policy," no. If you mean "Will I still work on policy issues if I an on the arbitration committee," absolutely yes. But I do not imagine that my status as an arbitrator would give me any special power in such debates except inasmuch as it amounts to a certain social status. Phil Sandifer 13:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * thanx.--Blue Tie 14:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from [[User:Until(1
2)|Until(1 == 2)]] ==


 * 1) Do you think that the community should be responsible for the creation and maintaining of Wikipedia policy, or do you think another system would be better? 1 != 2  17:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How is this relevant to my role as an arbitrator, given that I have stated repeatedly that the arbitration committee does not and should not create policy? Phil Sandifer 17:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your personal views on the community are relevant to me. If you do not wish to answer, then that is okay. 1 != 2  17:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the community is absolutely responsible for the creation and maintaining of Wikipedia policy, but I do not think that the community has the sole responsibility - Jimbo, the Foundation, and other checks and balances exist, and all of them also have responsibility. Phil Sandifer 18:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. 1 != 2  18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Irpen
The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private. Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?
 * Mailing list


 * I do not see a way to remove people from the list temporarily while a case involving them is pending - at least, not without crippling the ability of other cases to progress. Beyond that, barring extraordinary circumstances in which an arbitrator leaves the committee in a sub-optimal way (something that has happened twice) I think the ability of past arbitrators to weigh in on the process is potentially valuable, and I would not look to reverse that convention without clear evidence that it has been a problem in some fashion. Phil Sandifer 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it  has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?
 * Secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators


 * No. This is not a court of law. There are no due process considerations. We are results oriented, not process oriented. Phil Sandifer 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators who are parties of the case or have an involvement with the case parties that can reasonably be considered to affect their impartiality are expected to recuse. What involvement constitutes the ground for a recusal has traditionally been left to the arbitrators' own discretion, except for obvious cases when arbitrators themselves are case parties. While recused arbitrators, especially the case parties, are allowed to take an active part in cases, collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages, the same way as ordinary parties, they retain the opportunity to read the thoughts of other arbitrators at Arbcom-L and respond to those privately. It is technically difficult to exclude arbitrators from communication on a case they are involved. But would you support a prohibition for such arbitrators to discuss the case with other arbitrators through the private communication channels, except when submitting evidence whose nature warrants non-publicity?
 * Recusals


 * I do not support forbidding people from talking to one another. This is not a second grade classroom. Phil Sandifer 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?
 * Community oversight over the arbitration policy


 * I do not support returning control of any policy to the community - Wikipedia is not a democracy - it is a constitutional monarchy. The arbitration committee is further a special case, as its existence does not stem from a community initiative but from Jimbo's desire to devolve particular aspects of his power. Thus arbitration policy is unique on Wikipedia in that it is particularly slanted towards Jimbo's desired form of it as opposed to the community's. Changing it to be something that the community controls would, I think, be a mistake. Phil Sandifer 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)