Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Phil Sandifer/Questions for the candidate

=General questions=
 * Questions that an editor would like a majority of the—or all—candidates to answer should be asked as general questions. General questions are asked here, and copied over and answered by the candidate as s/he sees fit. Editors should ask general questions at that link, and not here; only the candidate should place questions here. (See top of page for guidance.)

Question from Ultraexactzz
Good luck with your candidacy. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) If you had to describe the ideal role of an Arbitrator in one word, what would that word be?
 * Careful to avoid situations where complex issues need to be boiled down into one word answers. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Giggy
Thank you and good luck. Giggy (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Questions added via the global question list.
 * 1) a/s/l?
 * 26. The rest is not relevant. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion on the apparent divide in editors who focus primarily in mainspace, and those who focus primarily in project space? What would you do to help ease conflicts that come as a result of clashes between these editors? This is a deliberately open ended question.
 * The divide is regrettable, but seems a natural consequence of having long-time contributors. Over time, talented workers naturally start to transition into management roles - it's a natural progression. So while the divide is unfortunate and at times harmful, I don't see a viable way to prevent it. In terms of lessening conflict, I don't really have a programatic solution beyond the standard processes we have in place - discussion, working towards compromise and consensus, etc. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
 * For the most part, I think that it's the correct thing to do simply because the alternative leads to problematic actions and extended debate over marginal edits. I have no problems with any editor restoring useful edits and taking responsibility for them, but the default for banned users should remain 'revert." Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Pick one arbitration case opened in the last year that contains a final decision with which you disagree. How do you think the case should have been handled, what different proposals would you have made, etc.? Again, somewhat open ended.
 * I would not have, in the IRC case, issued any sort of "final warning" against Giano. While I argued for more definite sanction, frankly, either no sanction or a definite sanction would have been more appropriate. But given the reluctance the community has displayed in enforcing decisions against Giano, I think that a hedging decision like that one was wholly inappropriate and frankly a low point for the committee. I would also have, in the fiction deletions case, come down harder on outright deletionism. Simply put, when your primary contribution to the project is the removal of content, you are not working within the norms of the project, and your behavior is de facto disruptive.
 * I will note, however, that due to my active involvement in the IRC case, and my heavy involvement in the underyling issues on the fiction case, I would recuse from any follow-ups on either case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
 * Having been here for over four years, I am hard pressed to answer this well. WP:CLN is a pretty good, if oft-ignored guideline. WP:DICK remains my most cited contribution. I've got various article contributions, but honestly, those tend not to be the product of protracted debate in the same way, so I blank on them more easily. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * I have not decided yet, but I am inclined against it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Sarcasticidealist
I'm repeating a couple of questions I asked on User:MBisanz's excellent voter guides; those of you who answered there can feel free to copy and paste your answers from there. I echo both the thanks and the best wishes of the above questioners.
 * 1) To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?
 * If by policy you mean the text of the policy pages, minimally. If one looks at the history of policy pages, much of their content is a product of accidents - wording changes that were made incidentally and without discussion slowly morph into fundamental cornerstones of policy, and ideas rapidly get ported to contexts they were not designed for. The policy pages are at best attempts to describe a complex, ever-changing living practice that combines general principles with pragmatic concerns. They often do this well, but they are not binding as such - they are better considered as the instruction manual for policy. If by policy you mean the broader picture of policy pages, underlying principles, pragmatic practice, and momentary consensus, it is a sufficiently fungible and living thing that I have a hard time describing it as binding. But on the other hand, it is absolute - it's just that, like anything on a wiki, its absoluteness is tempered by the speed at which it can shift. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
 * As I am not privy to the content of the list, I have no opinion on the appropriateness of it. However, I am inclined to take seriously the seeming preference that arbitrators have for maintaining the presence of past arbitrators, and would be very surprised by evidence that they have been doing so inappropriately or unwisely. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) At least one candidate has committed to being "open to recall" in much the same way as administrators in Category:Administrators open to recall. What is your view of the wisdom of this, and do you see yourself making a comparable commitment?
 * I dislike the recall procedure for admins, and do not think that it would work any better for arbitrators. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Celarnor

 * 1) What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (.e,g, types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?
 * Well, the practical answer is that the Committee's remedies are only as effective as the community will allow them to be. We've seen this particularly clearly with Giano, where the community effectively set up a zone of protection around him that made it impossible for the arbcom's sanctions to take the effect that they would normally take. So I think that's the most important check on the arbcom. That said, I think the arbcom's role is in resolving disputes that are referred to it, and that there are cases where this requires innovation beyond what has been thought up for the arbcom policy. For the most part, our policies are written to describe what has been done in the past, with the assumption that it will be the normative approach for the future. Implicit in this is the ability to change gears quickly to deal with a new problem. The arbcom ought approach things in the same way, but is,o n the other hand, checked by the willingness of the community to indulge it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
 * Members of the arbcom are a sort of de facto leadership for the project, and should behave accordingly. This is a fuzzy duty without specific tasks, but amounts to recognizing the weight that their speaking has, and to be moderate and careful in approaching conflicts outside of arbitration. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from LessHeard vanU
This follows from the various attempts this year at addressing the means by which Administrators can be desysopped, none of which has gained sufficient traction. Thanks for considering the above, and all the best in your endeavour.
 * 1) Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that, given that the arbcom is the sole body that can make these distinctions, cases along these lines need to be very seriously considered, and there is a greater responsibility to undertake them given that they cannot be effectively referred back to the community. However, my decision on whether to take a given case would be determined primarily by the particulars of the case, not by some general principle to take more cases. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Carnildo

 * 1) How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
 * As many as it takes up to my ability. I have a flexible schedule, and can generally devote time to things. In the unlikely event that the task and my time commitments do not sufficiently correspond, I would of course step aside. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from WilyD

 * 1) During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally).  While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:
 * Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over a regular editing issue? Are there any special considerations?  If it is not appropriate, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
 * It is clearly the case that admins are subject to editing rules as well - a 3RR block, for example, applies just as well to an admin as anyone else. The special considerations, as I see them, are the same that are afforded to any long-time contributor with an established track record of good contributions. Which is to say, some measure of care should be taken when blocking regulars, but they certainly don't get any sort of carte blanche to violate restrictions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when?  If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
 * Given that administrator tools are not rescinded via blocks, such a measure seems silly - to my mind, other channels of action are simply better suited to this sort of situation. It's not a situation that immediately gets my hackles up in a way that necessitates sanction in and of itself. But it could readily be part of a larger pattern of problematic behavior that might require sanction. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from PhilKnight

 * 1) In what situations would you recuse yourself? Obviously, I'm not asking for a generic answer, but instead I'm genuinely interested in what subject areas, or conflicts involving which users, you would recuse yourself. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would recuse myself on cases involving Giano, Everyking, other users from the IRC case, and, at least for the time being, on notability issues specifically relating to fictional topics. This list is not comprehensive, and there may well be other situations where I would recuse, but those are what spring to mind. If there are any specific subjects you'd like to ask about recusal on, please feel free. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Imagine there is a case involving an editor who had been pushing a scientific racist viewpoint, and then another editor describes them as racist. Then an uninvolved admin blocks the second editor for a personal attack. How should this be handled?
 * Is there a specific case you're referring to? This is the sort of thing where particulars matter a lot. But in the general case, I would be inclined to think that the second editor's description, while accurate, still serves to cheapen the discourse instead of advancing it. I would not be the one to lift the block, as a result, but I would not be inclined to speak out against any editor who did either. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Thatcher
1. The Arbitration Committee handles a wide variety of complex situations on the private mailing list, some presenting moral and ethical dilemmas that never come to the full attention of the wider community. How would you handle some of these situations?

A. A checkuser forwards to the Arbcom mailing list evidence that a large number of vandal accounts share a single IP address and a single user agent with an administrator. After internal discussion, the IP address is blocked Anon only, ACB, under the theory that since the IP is a workplace, it might be shared, but that if the admin is the vandal, he will "get the hint." The admin takes a short unannounced hiatus, then returns as if nothing had happened. Right call or wrong call and why? Does the kind of vandalism make a difference?


 * Probably the right call. That kind of vandalism does make a difference, but it's still only vandalism, and vandalism is dealt with as a natural waste product of the wiki. Obviously, given the evidence and the "surprise" vanish of the administrator without comment, I would not oppose doing a recheck of the situation to see if the problem has gone away in a few months. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

B. A checkuser who is an active editor of a particular article or topic sees a new user acting suspiciously like a previously banned user. What should the checkuser do?
 * (a) Run the check himself. After all, he is the most familiar with the banned user's editing patterns, and if the account turns out to be an unrelated editor, there is no privacy violation as long as the checkuser does not discuss the findings with anyone.
 * (b) Ask an uninvolved checkuser to evaluate the need for a check, and then run the check if needed. Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is worth the delay and inconvenience.
 * (c) Write your own answer.


 * C. Ask an uninvolved checkuser to evaluate the need for a check and to run the check. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

C. User:Smith is banned after a long series of behavioral problems including harassment of User:Jones, which Smith continues on his personal blog. A checkuser presents evidence that Smith has returned as User:Smythe. His editing is without incident and he is avoiding Jones. The Committee decides to ignore the Smythe account. Some time later, Smith emails the Committee, disclosing the Smythe account and pointing out Smythe's good edits, and asking to be unbanned. However, he has continued to post negative comments about Jones on his blog, and Jones objects to allowing Smith to edit under any account name. What should be done?
 * I support the right to vanish and return as a sock account, but the price paid is that the sock account is a clean start - not a trial period to get back the original account. Which is to say, no, no lifting the ban, and if Smythe behaves in a way where anyone outside of the committee figures out who he is, well, re-block. I support second chance socks, but only inasmuch as they are done in such a way as to be undetectable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

2. In private discussions about a pending arbitration case, there is a split between a group of Arbitrators who want strong sanctions and a group that want mild or no sanctions. Is it better to propose a middle of the road decision that everyone can sort of support, or to write a proposed decision with both the mild and severe remedies and have an open vote? What should happen if neither the mild nor severe remedy gets a majority? Does public disagreement improve or impair the Committee's credibility?


 * I am hesitant to answer this in the general case, but I have generally preferred to see debate among arbitrators on-wiki on such matters, even if that debate amounts to them making brief statements summarizing points they have already made in private. In the case of a genuine split, I would assume that the severe remedy supporters would indicate second choice support for milder remedies if push came to shove. I certainly would. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Just as there are consequences for taking action as an Arbitrator, there are consequences for inaction. The mailing list receives 70-100 messages per week. I do not believe it is humanly possible for an editor to remain fully engaged in whatever aspects of Wikipedia they currently enjoy, and also be fully engaged in the business of the Arbitration Committee. If you do not fully engage in the mailing list, you might miss a legitimate ban appeal, or the chance to comment on an important private matter, or an important policy discussion. If you skip an Arbitration case or two in order to spend time writing articles, you might later discover that the decision had provisions you find incorrect or objectionable. How will you balance your regular wiki-work with participation on Arbcom? If you opt out of some matters to avoid having all your time consumed by Arbcom, what will you do if those matters are resolved in an unsatisfactory matter?


 * The bulk of my on-wiki work, at this point, has been in the area of policy formation. I do not think that transitioning to arbcom negates that work - in fact, it is, I think, a lateral shift that makes sense. Obviously I would want to scale back my actual debating of the issues out of concern for the need to not have arbitrators dictate policy. But I think arbitration work and the work I do are closely related. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

4. Have you disclosed your real name and employer? If not, are you prepared to have that information involuntarily disclosed? Would such involuntary disclosure impact your service on the Arbitration Committee?


 * I have disclosed it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Newyorkbrad
1. Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:
 * (A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
 * (B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;
 * (C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on WP:RfAR) and for clarification or modification of prior decisions;
 * (D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users on the arbitrators' mailing list;
 * (E) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;
 * (F) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
 * (G) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain).


 * A, B, C, D, E. I am aware that checkuser is, as it has been put, more an art than a science, and am probably not as good at it as others would be, but would take up the work if it was seen as necessary. G is difficult to answer in terms of qualification, but I've not seen a lot of arbitrator activities that seem beyond my capabilities. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Please review the current arbitration policy at Arbitration policy, as well as the proposed updating and revision of the policy that I posted a few weeks ago (based in part on some input from the ArbCom RfC over the summer) at Arbitration policy proposed updating and the later draft posted by arbitrator FT2 at Arbitration policy proposed updating/FT2. Do you have any comments on the proposed changes? Are there any changes you would support to the policy, or to ArbCom's current procedures, beyond those proposed there?


 * The changes mostly seem sane to me, and I generally approve of them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Although the committee was quite busy when I joined it in January, and there have been a few high-profile "mega" cases in the past few months, in general the Arbitration Committee's caseload has been lower during the past three months or so than at any time since the committee was created in 2004. Please share any thoughts you have on this situation, including its causes and whether it is a good or bad thing.


 * It seems that much of the decline in caseload is the fact that previous "normal" cases are handled by the community. The arbcom used to waste a lot of time banning users who are now seen as clear-cut cases for community ban. That has led the arbcom to having to take on more extreme and difficult cases, which it has not necessarily been great at, not that I see any real better alternatives than the arbcom for most of the mega cases. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo
1. Say you are given the power to implement or abolish one policy on Wikipedia by fiat, with immediate effect, no questions asked. What would that be?


 * I would scrap the current wording of NOR, which has, I think, fallen excessively far from any meaningful model of how research and use of sources actually functions and become a sort of echo chamber of strange ideas that do not work in practice, and are not how article writing is actually conducted. I would not scrap the underlying concept of the policy, but its specific approach to sources and their use is deeply problematic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Hence or otherwise (of Q1), should ArbCom be in the business of creating new policy, amend an existing policy, or abolish any policy as a result of any outcome of a case? If so, should the community be consulted on such matters beforehand?


 * On the scale that you describe, no. On the other hand, policy is a complex beast that is not easily reduced to a legal code - it entails not merely the policy pages but standard practice, general principles, and the momentary will of the community. Thus I do support the arbcom going beyond a literal textual reading of policy in understanding a situation. But that is not equivalent to the sort of direct alteration of policy that you describe. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?(AC/IRC)


 * I think that that is a Foundation issue, not an arbcom issue, however I would hope that the arbcom would be willing to accept jurisdiction of IRC if the Foundation saw fit to extend it. However, Freenode channels are allocated to projects, and the arbcom is in a position to make deals with Freenode directly unless the larger project sees fit. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

4. "Change We Need" and "The same old Washington that's broken" is a favourite mantra for candidates running for office, and that includes this election. Would you, and how would you reform ArbCom? And how can editors be sure that you will stay true to your promise?


 * I do not see any argument for sweeping reforms of arbcom. This comes up every November, as the committee drags to a halt due to fatigue and a sense of lame duckness. Come January and February, it inevitably rallies, is productive, and then peters out over ten months. I am willing to entertain specific suggestions for changes, however I do not think that a general banner of change is necessary or appropriate here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754
Arbcom questions 2008 - these will be asked at the December 2008 elections and scored on a hidden rubric, which will determine my level of support.

Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2007, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support.

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 06:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
 * Clearly three months is too long for a case to take. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * I don't think they can "enforce" them as such, as MoS level stuff should never be edit warred over, but I think they can set MoS-level guidelines. But that's mostly because a well-run WikiProject should be co-equivalent to the community of editors on a particular topic, and thus is able to form consensus not because it's a WikiProject with special powers, but because that's what the community of editors does. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I would hope that such a situation would never arise, given that a WikiProject should just be an informal community of editors on a topic, and a schism between parent and child projects would demarcate a schism in editing communities that shouldn't exist. If such a schism exists, the problem of standard imposition is frankly not the biggest concern. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
 * It can include both, certainly, but it would be something you'd judge in the specific, not the general. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Obviously bad, messy edits should be undone. Good faith errors should not be immediately met by blocks, and good faith edits are never vandalism, but on the other hand, persistent edit warring to impose something that is clearly recognized as a bad idea stops being good faith quickly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
 * Your question doesn't really make sense - smart aleck remarks violate WP:CIV in many cases. Ignoring consensus violates a wealth of policies. So what you're describing is not a user who has not broken policies. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
 * Much patience should be extended in an attempt to overcome the situation - judgments that an editor is not intelligent enough to edit are fairly harsh. But if the editor is truly entrenched and damaging the encyclopedia, in the end, that needs to be stopped. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
 * I tend to take an empirical rather than philosophical view of community bans. A community ban is what happens when no administrator is willing to lift a block. Certainly the above situations can, over time, lead to a sufficient exhaustion of good will that nobody will lift a block, which means that a community ban can be imposed. But I think that the nature of a community ban is that it is a ban of default, rather than principle. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) (This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * Excessive policy literalism and policy rigidity, and a focus on process over product. An insular attitude that at times actively rejects outsider perspectives - including those of our readers, who outnumber our editors significantly. A poor explanation of policies like WP:NOR that leads to an unrealistic view of what research constitutes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Maxim

 * 1) What is your stance on wheel-warring? What do you define as wheel-warring? As an arbitrator, how would you respond to a case surrounding a wheel war?
 * I think wheel-warring is harmful, but confess that I do not have the automatic and reflexive hatred of it that some do. I also think that we've been a bit over-harsh on supposed wheel wars, which to me constitute more than a single administrative reversion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
 * If a process can be constructed that is more akin to community bans (where a ban is instituted more or less by unanimous consent), I support it - but proposals along the lines of "requests for de-adminship" are far too divisive and hurtful to be useful. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion on adminbots? The bot policy was updated to allow adminbots to bypass RfA, going only through BRfA, and fully-automated unapproved adminbots were required to be approved via BRfA. What is your opinion on handling unapproved adminbots? What is your general opinion on high-speed admin tools, which are not fully automated (like Twinkle)?
 * I confess, I have no strong feelings here. There are certainly administrator tasks where bots are useful. There is also vast potential for abuse here. I don't think that RFA is necessarily the right forum for approving admin bots, but on the other hand, I think an easier procedure for approving admin bots needs to be coupled with a lower degree of trust - that is, easier than RFA to approve them, easier than RFAr to revoke approval. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from rootology
Hello, thank you for running for the AC election! Good luck, or our sympathies are with you, depending on certain points of view! I'll be asking everyone these same questions.

Questions:

1. In regards to the massive "omnibus" case Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, do you think bundling it all together was helpful to Wikipedia? Why, or why not?
 * I think it could have been if the arbcom had been willing to be decisive and to do something. Bundling the case and then punting on definitive resolution, however, was deeply unhelpful. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

2. On the same aforementioned Omnibus case, the question came up here of impartiality in voting by the seated Arbiters. It was shown there that a seated, voting arbiter in the case was unwilling to support "subjective" findings that all the users were valuable contributors to Wikipedia, even ones who have created multiple Featured Articles (to the point of being leaders on the all-time list for most Featured Articles, ever). Should someone be seated as an Arbiter, unless they are always capable of being impartial in cases they choose to not recuse from? Why, or why not?

3. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia community controlling Arbitration Committee policy, and the AC following the framework of policy that the community sets out for them in how to conduct business?
 * I prefer the current system, where the community serves as a check not prior to arbcom action, but after it - the community has, on two occasions I can think of, reversed or de facto reversed an arbcom decision. This, I think, works better than trying to rule before the fact. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

4. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia Arbcom elections being totally owned by and controlled by the community of editors? As in, as how it is on other language Wikipedias--elections are done as straight votes/consensus, with the leaders being seated based on that alone, subject solely to the will of their peers.
 * Well, that's not the way en is run in general - we still acknowledge Jimbo as having a special role on the project. So long as that is the case, I think that necessarily affects the dynamic of the arbcom. Should Jimbo's role change, I would assume the arbcom would as well. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

5. Do you think an Arbiter should be placed on the Committee without a clear endorsement/supporting majority vote of the community they will be serving during the election? If yes, why? If no, why?
 * I can't imagine such a circumstance ever happening. I would certainly withdraw from the candidate pool before it got there. But past that, this would be unprecedented, no? I'm not going to go about condemning things that have never happened and show no signs of happening. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

6. You get to set a mandate, one sentence in length, for policy on how the Arbitration Committee will work--it could be AC policy, AC elections, AC responsibilities, mandates--anything and everything. No one can overrule this change, not Jimbo, not the other AC members, not the WMF board (so long as it's legal, of course); no IAR exemptions, and it is the Law of the Land forever in AC matters. What is it, in one sentence of 15 words or less?
 * I would not take such an opportunity. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

7. Please rank these in order of whom the Arbcom serves and answers to, in order from first to last (the party who should have the most power over the AC goes first, the one who should have the least power over the AC goes last:


 * a) The Community
 * b) Jimbo Wales
 * c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee
 * d) The Wikimedia Foundation


 * Feel free to explain your ordering choices and your rationale behind them, if so inclined.


 * I do not think the arbcom serves any of those. It serves the project - it serves the encyclopedia. It serves the task of creating and distributing free knowledge as effectively as possible. It, Jimbo, the community, and the WMF are all servants of that task, not of each other. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and again--good luck. rootology ( C )( T ) 00:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Davewild

 * 1) Do you support reducing the length of Arbitrators terms to under 3 years, and if you do and are elected, how will you go about trying to get this implemented?
 * I have no strong feelings on this. For the most part, three years is, as a matter of practice, too long for an arbitrator to serve. I've seen little evidence that arbitrators staying on for the full three years and becoming inactive is a major problem in practice, however. Most arbitrators seem to resign before the completion of a three year term, and the six that haven't have largely been unproblematic. I can think of only two cases where I feel like an arbitrator was really around past when was helpful, and even one of those I'm torn on. Thus I don't see the long term limits as a particularly pressing issue. Thus I don't really think it's something that is a very fruitful target for immediate attention. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Davewild (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from roux
This question is to gauge your general thoughts on how civility applies as a general principle across WP. Please read the proposals here first.

1) Which conceptual statement(s), if any, in section A would you support or oppose, and why?

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?


 * 2) a) If you oppose all proposed restrictions, but view low-level civility as a concern: what restrictions, if any, would you propose as alternatives to those outlined in section B?
 * I think low level incivility is a serious problem, but on the other hand, I think that enforced civility restrictions are very much unlikely to alleviate the situation. One need only look at the abject failure of civility restrictions to do anything other than spark angry and incivil debates around Giano to see the long-term future of this approach. We need social, soft pressure rather than hard security here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering, and best of luck with the election. [ roux  » x ] 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)
'' This is actually a question suggested originally on Wikipedia Review; however, I think it's an intelligent – and in the current climate, significant – enough question to warrant asking. –  iride scent  01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC) ''
 * 1) Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?
 * I don't think this can be adequately answered in a general case - I would want to talk to Jimbo, to the other arbitrators, and to the passed over candidate, and to see the response of the community in general before I made a decision like that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Lar
Note: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so.


 * 1) Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * I lean towards b on this. I think we generally solve BLP problems adequately, but that there is a dispiriting tendency for more eyes to make BLP problems worse, not better. Much of this is caused when BLP problems get expressed in public, flamey ways instead of via OTRS, which tends to do a good job of quietly and effectively handling things. The problem with opt out is that "marginally notable" is still a floating term, so this doesn't remove controversy. Default to delete accomplishes a similar goal, but moves the goalpost from a subjective principle to a measurable outcome. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * Question one is a question of policy. However, BLP itself is set policy, and it is within the arbcom's remit to enforce it. If the community fails to settle a BLP matter, it can fall to the arbcom to do so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?
 * I think consensus still works, but that it works better on local levels, dealing with specific issues than on the big picture level. I do agree that policy change has grown increasingly difficult to manage, and that bad policy decisions are getting enshrined as core and immutable decisions. This is most notable on WP:V and WP:NOR, where the written policy and actual practice diverge sharply and problematically. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?
 * I support flagged revisions, but do not see an arbcom role in their implementation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)
 * f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
 * g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)
 * I support the principle. I tend to think, however, that rolling back identities is difficult at best. My identity is public. In the case of outing occuring off-site, it seems to me a case by case issue. There are certainly attempts to out people that are actively abusive, and cases of outing that have problematic chilling effects. These should be combatted, but there are limits to what can be done here. The real thing we want to prevent is threats of real-world retaliation for on-wiki activities that are in accordance with our policies. The issue of outing is related to that, but what needs to be kept in mind is that outing is a tool to accomplish that, and we need to make sure that we focus on preventing the right thing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * I think real world retaliation is a genuine problem - and I say this having been the victim of it in what remains one of the most vicious and destructive real-world attacks we've had. I think we need to do more. But the need to do more is not necessarily coupled with a clear course of action. I'd like to see more, but I don't have any good ideas on how to take productive action. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * Banned users should be reverted on sight. Good edits can be reinstated later, but allowing banned editors to make good edits opens the door to trolling via making borderline edits. This is one of the oldest troll tricks in the book. It is far easier for the editing community on a given article to reinsert good edits and take responsibility for them than it is to play games with banned users. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * Wikipedia should be discussed on Wikipedia. But I think we also need to look outside of the echo chamber and make sure we're serving our readers, not just ourselves. I don't think that WR is a useful venue for this, nor that "criticism" sites in general are. But that doesn't mean that thoughtful observations by readers in blogs, forum posts, etc shouldn't be taken seriously. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * Any long-standing community has that problem, but there's not much to be done - it's a fact of Internet life, frankly.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Blue. It makes me happy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern

 * 1) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
 * I am unconvinced that national/ethnic edit warring is substantively different from any other sort of POV-pushing edit warring, or that it needs any special approach unlike that which has worked for all sorts of other POV pushers. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Civility restrictions: Civility restrictions imposed by the Arbcom seem to frequently prove divisive among administrators enforcing them. Frequently, one administrator feels the user in question has been uncivil and should be blocked, while another disagrees and unblocks shortly thereafter. Should the committee seek to change this? If so, how? Different restrictions? Different wording? Using them less frequently or not at all? Is there anything you would change about the committee's approach to the civility policy?
 * I think that civility restrictions have largely proven too subjective to be soundly enforced, and that some revision is necessary - whether requiring multiple admins to issue the block and restricting unblocks, visa versa, or abandoning them in favor of other restrictions I honestly don't know. Other restrictions is certainly appealing, but those restrictions would probably end up being harsher in a way that is unsatisfying. The fact of the matter is, civility is a very, very hard thing to enforce well and without having the cure be worse than the disease. Unfortunately, civility restrictions have, I think, been failures in the field. And I think the arbcom needs to experiment with other approaches, with the knowledge that some of the experiments will fail. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

 * 1) What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
 * I would not make that decision on a white line numeric basis. However, in the past I have withdrawn candidacy if after initial voting it is clear that I am not a credible candidate, and I would do so again this year.
 * 1) Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
 * I am not a fan of the administrator recall system for a variety of reasons, and would not support its expansion to arbcom. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from TreasuryTag

 * 1) What is your opinion on the concept of flagged revisions, in particular: will it help to ease or reduce the sort of dispute that comes the way of the Arbitration Committee? Or is it irrelevant to the ArbCom's work? If this is near-identical to another question you have already answered please reference where on the page that question is. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They seem like a good idea that has had success on de. Then again, de is a different community to ours, and more... hard-line and zealous measures work there than would work on en. That said, I think they're worth a trial on en. But I see them as a tool for readers, not editors, and I would be surprised if they reduce the caseload. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion on the proposed abuse filter? Will it affect the ArbCom's work? If this is near-identical to another question you have already answered please reference where on the page that question is. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that, as with any filter, it's going to have some false positives, but that it's mostly a good, common sense attempt to reduce vandalism. Vandalism, however, is rarely dealt with by the arbcom. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from UninvitedCompany

 * 1) Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
 * Copy-editing and minor expansions of articles here and there, a fair amount of stub starting, and a lot of policy discussion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
 * I'm a graduate student in English focusing on film and new media. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
 * I have participated in far more than I am inclined to think of. I use either my real name or Snowspinner in all of the ones I am willing to disclose, so Google should provide further information straightforwardly. I am unaware of any Snowspinners on the web that are not me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
 * Nothing springs to mind as non-routine. I've been an active participant in many discussions, but never in an extraordinary capacity. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations?  If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?
 * No. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
 * My academic website is linked from my userpage, and my CV is on it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Have you publicly revealed your actual name and address?  Do you plan to do so if elected?  If not, how do you plan to respond to any threats you may receive to publicize this information?
 * My name, yes. My address, no, though it's hardly a secret. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any friends, family members, or other people close to you IRL who edit Wikipedia?  What are their user names and their relationships to you?
 * A few who edit infrequently and not under their real names. I am unwilling to violate their privacy, except to note that I have never colluded with them on any policy issues nor employed them as meatpuppets. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
 * I'm known to be in IRC and on the mailing list. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee?  Do they all carry equal weight?
 * I do not view arbcom as a matter of political constituencies, but as a pragmatic and results-oriented appointment. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept?  Refuse?
 * It should accept cases where no other structure in Wikipedia can provide a satisfactory result, and reject ones where its intervention is not needed. Over time this has led from a shift from cases about long-time problem users who require bans or sanction to much thornier and controversial issues. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
 * Carefully, and with an eye towards the end goal - creation of a useful free knowledge resource. The arbcom cannot afford to get involved beyond that concern. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
 * I think editing restrictions and bans have been effective, and that creativity beyond that has largely failed. Then again, article restrictions and editing restrictions were creativity once, so there's nothing to be lost in further innovation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?
 * No. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most?  Why?
 * I think Jdforrester, David Gerard, Mindspillage, and Newyorkbrad have all been exceptional arbitrators who took great care at various times to look deeply into issues and work out solutions that went beyond the superficial or obvious. They have all also been capable of a determined pragmatism that I think is valuable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
 * Again, I think that results are what is important here. The standard of proof, to me, is that the outcome improves the encyclopedia. In terms of findings of fact, given that the findings are stipulated as facts, for me, the standard is that I am convinced that the finding is factual. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
 * I have few feelings about this matter, and have not followed WMF politics particularly. The site seems to work, and I have high regard for that,. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
 * I'm a member of the OTRS team, and I have found the team to be tireless, dedicated, and skillful in resolving problems. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
 * Since I do not know what that information is, it would be presumptuous for me to plan on releasing it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from TomasBat

 * 1) In general, which of these 2 concepts do you regard as higher priority? The concept of "user" as another human being or "what's best for the encyclopedia"? (would you be 200% fair and patient to a relatively new good faith user at the expense of commiting to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)


 * I don't think that the two are in meaningful conflict. Good and patient does not mean permitting harm to the encyclopedia - it means being polite in preventing it, and explaining the problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Matthew

 * 1) Briefly, please explain the role of the arbitration committee and why you (if so) believe the committee "works".
 * 2) Choose your role: judge, jury or executioner.
 * 3) What are your strengths?
 * 4) What are your weaknesses?

Question from MBisanz

 * 1) In the past there have been issues with arbitrators who did not reveal their real life identity onwiki, being harassed offwiki with the threat of revealing it. If you have not revealed your identity publicly and were threatened with someone revealing it with the intent to harass you, how would you respond?  If your identity is already public, feel free to ignore this question.

Questions from Pixelface

 * 1) Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you were listed as an involved party. (I am speaking of closed cases as well as active cases). Do you think the remedies given in the case(s) were helpful in resolving any disputes?
 * IRC, Snowspinner vs. Lir, John Gohde 1. The latter two, I think, were resolved correctly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you, acting as a non-member of the committee, have provided a statement, or evidence, or /Workshop material. Do you feel it was worth your time in each case?
 * None spring to mind that are not covered in #1 or #3. Ah. Wait. No, I partiipated in the Paul Vogel case way back when without being involved. And one of the recent cases Giano came up in, I think I commented on the workshop. I may also have commented on the Sarah Palin wheel war, but I forget if I was counted as an involved party there. Mostly I have felt unsatisfied by cases I have participated on the workshop for. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Please list all the requests for arbitration you've made. (If you can't remember them all, please describe some of the ones you *do* remember).
 * Avala, Lir, WHEELER, Webcomics, One or two of the three Everyking cases, possibly one of the CheeseDreams cases, possibly the first of the RexStringofNumbersIForget cases. I submitted a request for clarification on episodes and characters. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Badger Drink
title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin&oldid=222088290 the OrangeMarlin case]?
 * 1) It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?
 * I think the arbcom chickened out on the IRC case in a way that rendered the case more destructive rather than less. And I think the arbcom failed to adequately implement existing policy in dealing with the episodes and characters case. Without making a single ruling on notability, the arbcom could have extended a common sense principle that editors are expected to contribute content, not act primarily to remove it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your thoughts regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
 * I have no particular thoughts, having been uninvolved with the whole of the lead-up. From a brief read of the evidence page and the resolution, I see nothing that sticks out as hugely problematic, though it's possible I'm missing something due to context. Can you explain why this case is of particular interest to you? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This final question may be frustratingly broad - and might be superceded by smaller, more focused questions on individual aspects of the incident. But let's just get a broad overview for the time being: What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?
 * I think that a lot of the issues are things that it is hard for me to judge on. I don't know how the arbcom handles private deliberations, because I've never been involved in a case with private evidence, so I have no knowledge of what gets considered. Certainly the concerns people has about this is notable, and certainly if elected I will look at those cases with the full knowledge that there are concerns. And I think there is a degree of entrenchment that takes place on the arbcom that is problematic. But it's easy to cast stones from the outside. More than anything, I think what is needed is better arbcom/community communication. But again - I'm on the outside of this issue, and it's easier to pass judgment when you only have half the facts. All I can really say is that, if elected, I will join the committee fully aware of the concerns raised, and will look at the situation from the inside carefully. But without knowing what goes on behind the closed doors, I can't really judge what should be done. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from BirgitteSB
Due to concerns over the way a non-public case was handled I once suggested some minimum standards for such cases. Which follow slightly clarified:


 * Have at least two arbitrators develop comprehensive presentations of evidence in isolation.
 * Allow all parties concerned to review at least the portions of the evidence presentations regarding their owns actions before any decision is reached.

I believe such standards will not only lessen the drama surrounding such cases, but are also necessary to have any confidence in the quality of the decision reached. In public cases the evidence presentations are usually left up the community and seldom is any one presentation comprehensive. However the scrutiny of the larger community is generally sufficient to tease out the weaknesses and strengths of the multiple presentations. Since private cases are necessarily denied this scrutiny it is imperative that evidence presentations are much stronger than in public cases. So I believe it is necessary for an arbitrator to collect the submissions of evidence into a comprehensive presentation even though such a thing is not done with public cases. Having two arbs put together presentations in isolation is an check on the subconscious bias of "finding what one is looking for." Allowing the parties to review the presentations concerning themselves is a final check on any misunderstandings, and a commonsense measure to build confidence in the whole process. How well do you agree with these suggested practices as I have outlined them?-- Birgitte SB  19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * They sound reasonable in principle, but without knowing everything about what goes on in non-public cases I am hesitant to commit firmly to any statements regarding them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Kristen Eriksen
1. In the course of ascertaining whether editors have violated our verifiability policy, arbitrators may be called upon to determine questions of source reliability. Should certain peer-reviewed journals be considered reliable sources when they are published by otherwise respectable organizations, but engage in a practice of lending credence to fields of endevour and subject matter widely held in disrepute by the scientific community? As an example, consider the journal "Homeopathy", which is published by Elsevier, but which regularly carries positive experimental results for homeopathic preparations.

2. What is the intent of our policy that WP:NOT? How does the presence or absence of content covered by that policy affect Wikipedia's utility, reputation, and acceptance amongst the academic community and the general public?

3. Consistent with our neutral point of view policy, what relative weight should be given to popular views and scientific findings where the two strongly conflict? For example, consider the finding of this study, and the previous research cited therein, that, in the United States, children seeing their parents naked or having sex did not result in adverse effects on their physical or psychological health. Most residents of the United States would strongly disagree with such a conclusion -- it is quite likely that we could, with sufficient effort, locate appropriate surveys or other reliable sources as to this state of popular opinion.

Questions From Ϣere Spiel  Chequers
For the following questions please don't count any cases that you were involved in, or if you'd been on Arbcom would have recused yourself for reasons such as friendship with a participant.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How many arbitration cases have you fully reviewed (or participated in as an Arbcomm member)?
 * 2) In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
 * 3) In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
 * 4) How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?

Question(s) from LtPowers

 * There seems to me to be a significant portion of the community that has lost, or is beginning to lose, trust in the ability of the Arbitration Committee to fairly and effectively adjudicate cases. Do you agree with that basic assessment?  If so, what do you think might be the major factor contributing to this attitude, and how might you attempt to modify ArbCom procedures and policies to regain that trust?  (Note: I recognize that many of the disaffected are simply apathetic or permanently cynical on the subject, and nothing ArbCom could do would restore a trust that was never there to begin with.  My question relates to those members of the community who might be persuadable if their specific objections were addressed.)  Powers T 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

=Individual questions=
 * Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

Question from Giggy
Do you stand by this statement? Giggy (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Parts of it. I still think that we need to have some measure in place to help our volunteers when they need help. I'm reasonably convinced that there are logistical problems with the plan as I proposed it, and I'm not knowledgeable enough about the legal matters to take any sort of leadership role in developing a workable proposal.


 * I am still in awe of the power this project has developed since I joined it, and of the gravity of responsibilities administratorship entails.


 * Are there other spots you want specific clarification on? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You mention parts of it, and then go on to say what you still agree with - so what do you disagree with? :) For instance do you still agree with "I have no fucking clue why I am a powerful and trusted administrator on the ninth biggest website in the world."? Giggy (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I said I recognize that the proposal as I made it was unworkable. That's a significant disagreement. :) As for that comment, I do, in the spirit I meant it, which is that "I am in awe of the degree to which the responsibility I undertook in mid-2004 has expanded in importance." I mean, I understand why I am a powerful and trusted administrator. I've been around since 2004 and I passed RFA. But all the same, there's still, when I stop to think about it, a "Whoa, really?" aspect to the scale of responsibility that entails. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from TreasuryTag
talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►contribs─╢ 14:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Given your dramatic "departure" from Wikipedia during the election campaigning last year, your decision to stand under an alternate account and commenting that you would rejoin Wikipedia if elected, and then your gradual return to editing (despite your having withdrawn to massive opposition), please suggest why the community should trust you to be a temperate, calm and level-headed Arbitrator? If this is near-identical to another question you have already answered please reference where on the page that question is. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I stood under an alternate account - I ran under this account. However, in response to your broader question, I would assume that the community would not judge based on a single event. I have an over four year time here. If one wants to believe that I am not capable of considered, good judgment they should feel free, but I would hope they would look at my entire time here to reach that conclusion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For information, I was referring to this alternate account. ╟─Treasury[[User
 * Ah. Yes, I made that edit under a transparent and open sock because I had password scrambled my primary account. That is not a "decision to stand under an alternate account" by any measure. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) There are numerous questions here that you've essenially side-stepped, commenting that they are irrelevant or you aren't interested in simple, one-sentence answers to questions. Again, please suggest why the community should trust you to be an attentive Arbitrator if you feel unable to attend to simple questions put to you, whether or not you consider them beneath you? If this is near-identical to another question you have already answered please reference where on the page that question is. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I sidestepped a question about gender and place of residence because it is outright irrelevant. Although I am open about my identity and the information is easily findable, I would prefer not to make my answer to that question a precedent for that being information that is revealed. By declining to answer I strip away the ability for the "everybody else answered it" argument to be used against someone for whom that information is not public knowledge. As for the other questions, the job of an arbitrator involves looking at complex situations and making complex judgments. That is, I believe, three questions out of a great number asked. A few others I've rejected the premise of, but, frankly, given that I disagree with the premise, I don't know what else I've really got open to me. I do not have much to offer somebody who finds my refusal to answer irrelevant personal questions, questions that demand over-simplification, or questions that I reject the premise of problematic. I would think that a willingness to answer any of those questions is, frankly, even more problematic. But I have given informative answers in response to virtually every question I have answered, and intend to do so on the rest. I find it difficult to believe that my answers are going to be viewed as insufficiently responsive to the issues. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Related to my last question, why do you feel that micro-summaries, one-sentence opinions, are bad? Are there any situations where they're appropriate? If this is near-identical to another question you have already answered please reference where on the page that question is. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they strive to take complex issues and reduce them to sound bites. Complex issues are not best served by simplifying. They're best served by careful, nuanced attention. And I will not be party to the reduction of debate over complex issues into one word and twelve word answers. This should not be a standard political campaign filled with slogans and branding. It should be a substantive, real debate about issues on Wikipedia. And those issues deserve better than micro-summaries. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Kosebamse
What is your stance on the following statement? "[...] Openness and transparency in government is a good and necessary thing. While some sort of consultations in private may be necessary and useful, untimately full and complete arguments for the decisions need to be presented in public. Yes, arbitrators do and will get a lot of flack, hurtful and ill-informed comments etc. Tough, but it is a part of the job. Oppenness and transparency of the proceedings prevent rumors, conspiracy theories and speculations running amok, lend legitimacy and moral authority to the process and ultimately prevent much more drama than they create. [...]"


 * It's true - for government. But part of what makes a government a government is coercive power via a social contract. Transparency and openness is a virtue elsewhere, but absolutely must be balanced against concerns for privacy, and the recognition that editors are volunteers with real lives, not citizens under the government of Wikipedia. And so, while transparency is a good general principle, it cannot trump principles like privacy and respect for the limits of our role in people's lives. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:The Land Surveyor
These are questions I am putting to all candidates - apologies if they have already been asked you before.


 * 1) Vested contributor. I'm not sure I understand this term, but the way one defines it seems also to define one's position on Wikipedia itself.  On one definition, it is a contributor who feels that because of their contributions, they stand above the ordinary rule of law on the wiki.  On the other definition, it is a user who makes strong and positive and lasting contributions to the project, but whose behaviour can be pointed and forthright, leading him or her to come into conflict with the - same might say - narrow-minded and absurd conception of civility that seems to rule on the project these days.  Which definition do you prefer?
 * 2) Reasonable behaviour Some have suggested that the criterion for civility should reflect the legal concept of what is 'reasonable' rather than anything else. What is your take on this?
 * 3) Content contributors A closely connected question: it is often argued by those who defend the 'narrow concept' of civility above, that there is no harm in blocking or banning an expert contributor because the gap will soon be filled - there is a practically infinite supply of potential contributors to Medieval semantics, say, who will make good the missing expertise of the existing contributors on that subject who have been banned. Do you agree with that argument?
 * 4) Banned users still editing. This question has been put by other users, but I ask it again, if that is all right.  It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly.  But that suggests there has been some sort of consensus in the community to allow them back.  Which suggests in turn that either there was a clear fault in the policy that caused them to be banned, or that the policy had not been correctly implemented.  In either case, should not these cases, however divisive they may be to the community, be taken to Arbcom?
 * 5) Criterion for RFAR A connected question: given the limited time available to Arbcom, what criteria should there be for taking a case to RFAR.  All the available evidence suggests the committee is slow to react or reply to requests.  Would clear criteria for a case being submitted be of use?  If so, what should those be?

I wish you the very best with your candidacy, I hope it goes the way you would like, but also that it goes the way that is ultimately of benefit to the community and the project. The Land Surveyor (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Will Beback
This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?


 * 2. Is it appropriate for editors to create joke accounts, role accounts, "personality" accounts, etc., to have fun or to make a point? Should socks be allowed to edit policies, engage in RfCs and ArbCom cases, or seek positions of trust in the community? Or should undisclosed alternate accounts be used only with care in limited circumstances?


 * 3. Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?