Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Sam Korn/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?
 * "Enabling". The Committee, and by extension its members, should be attempting to make it possible for the encyclopaedia to improve, quietly and unobtrusively.  As this is something of a pipe-dream, I'll add that the most important feature of a member of the Committee is integrity.

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?
 * 19, male, UK.
 * 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.
 * I am not convinced there is a "divide", as you put it. There is a wide spectrum of different ways of interacting with the project.  I, for example, am a relatively low-level content contributor, and a relatively high-level "meta" contributor.  Others contribute almost exclusively to content, others almost exclusively to the meta areas.  I think, therefore, that it is drawing an overly precise distinction to suggest that there is some idea of content-contributors versus meta-contributors.
 * Nonetheless, I accept your statement that the fact that some users contribute more content causes certain tensions. My general philosophy is that both play an important role.  Good-quality content contributions are self-evidently of the highest value.  The meta-contributors frequently (though by no means always) enable content to be produced.  This too is highly valuable.  As a member of the Committee, I would seek to judge the degree to which users are genuinely supporting the production of a free encyclopaedia when assessing their contributions.
 * In general, however, I would suggest that our core policy of assume good faith provides a guiding principle for such conflicts. If we are optimistic about each others' intentions, we are far more likely to make a productive project. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
 * There are occasions when it is necessary for users' safety. I oppose it when it amounts to punishment.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:39, 10 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.
 * As I have described elsewhere on this page, I cannot comment on recent cases, as I cannot ignore knowledge that I have through private channels (arbcom-l). As it would be a breach of trust for me to comment in such fashion, I cannot name specific incidents.
 * 1) Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
 * My CheckUser work, which I feel has been of use in preventing various kinds of harm from affecting the project.
 * The events that led to this RFC -- which I feel exemplify ignore all rules.
 * Ensuring that Betacommand received community sanctions rather than a community ban -- diverting understandable upset with a user into restrictions that allowed productive contributions going forwards.
 * Sambot -- creating a bot to update cricket statistics has long been an ambition, and I am pleased to see it working well.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * No. In the circumstance that I am elected, I should like there to be no bad blood between me and my colleagues.

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?
 * A. Policy is binding until it fails to make sense. That is to say, we should all follow policy while the result of following policy is the sensible way to proceed -- policy is, after all, written to be the sensible option in the majority of cases and when two options recommend themselves equally but policy recommends one or the other, we should follow that.  It is not unreasonable for people to expect us to enforce our policies consistently, and we should seek to do so wherever possible.
 * We should not, however, be afraid to go outside policy (beautifully, deliberately and well) when appropriate.
 * I invoked these principles rather notably at User:Sam Korn/RFC April 2006. I still feel that was an excellent application of "ignore all rules".  I note in particular that when you deliberately go outside policy, you should be aware of doing so, have excellent reasons for doing so and above all be prepared to explain why you did so.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
 * A: Yes, I feel the project would fall apart were it not for noble souls such as myself keeping the Committee members on the straight-and-narrow and bringing them to heel when they get power-mad.
 * Put another way, yes, I feel the Committee benefits from having a wider range of experienced voices to bring their knowledge about users and cases and to advise when the Committee's members are having difficulty with an issue. There is a potential for former arbitrators to abuse their position and campaign behind closed doors for their "friends", but I feel confident that I and other members of the Committee can know when to tune them out, when to listen and when to say "shut up".  Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:39, 10 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 will not make a comparable commitment, as I think hard-and-fast rules will end up getting gamed. I would instead commit to taking seriously complaints against me and, if I had users whom I know and respect telling me I should go, I would resign.
 * If other members of the Committee want to be open to recall, that is their choice; I for my part think it has the potential to cause unnecessary upset.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:39, 10 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")?
 * Let's not beat about the bush. This question is really "are general sanctions valid?" and "does the Arbitration Committee have the authority to apply them?"  I would answer "yes" to the first, with the caveat that it must be an extraordinary situation and other options must be clearly unsatisfactory or impracticable.  I don't see any reason why the Committee should not apply these remedies where necessary, though I strongly feel this should be very rare.  They should, of course, be sympathetically policed.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:27, 10 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?
 * The obligations
 * to be polite
 * to talk to users who need help with an Arbitration case
 * to explain the rationale for deciding a case, where necessary
 * to be scrupulously honest
 * more widely, to be an exemplar of Wikipedia practices and ethics.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:27, 10 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 do generally feel the Committee should take a stronger line when dealing with abuses of the admin tools.
 * In the particular case of wheel-warring, the most frequent example of the misuse of admin tools, I explain here that the biggest problem is the lack of discussion. I think the Committee should take a very strong line in these cases.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Carnildo

 * 1) How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
 * In the region of 25, the approximate amount of time I'm currently spending. Sam Korn (smoddy)

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:
 * 2) 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?
 * There are times when it is valid, yes. In general, though, one should be wary of blocking an established user, admin or not, for an editing dispute.  Ill thought-out blocks are problematic and worthy of sanction in and of themselves; I should not like to define rules that single out admins for special treatment.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * I think this is very dangerous behaviour and should be avoided when there is no immediate threat to the project or to living people. As I say above, this is about ill-considered blocks, rather than a specific rule about what circumstances admins are and are not allowed to block in.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:27, 10 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 can't think of any areas that would demand my recusal, though there may be some... There are users in whose cases I should recuse, but I shall not say who they are for fairly obvious reasons.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:27, 10 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?
 * Firstly, with the first editor, the POV-pushing is concerning and may well be deserving of sanction.
 * With the second editor, I find it difficult to suggest that calling someone a racist can ever be acceptable. Depending on the first editor's behaviour, there may be mitigating circumstances.  Temperateness is central to dealing with problem users.
 * With the admin, even if it was held that the block was wrong, it sounds reasonable and I do not envisage sanctions being put against him or her. It does, of course, depend on the precise behaviour.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If I might point out, there's been a couple people who have been pretty unambiguously racist - KKK members, a person who kept adding "race traitor" to the lead of a white woman who had married a black man (a living white woman, no less), and one who added black people to - I'll never get this title right - List of threats to the world, the human species, and civilization? - because he claimed that their stupidity would dilute the intelligent white people's through miscegnation. Actually, I think those were all the same person, and he was adding the last thing everywhere. If I called him a racist on WP:ANI, with links to edits demonstrating the above, and suggesting he be banned, would your answer still apply? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it is ever helpful to call someone a racist, even if evidently true. You cite an extreme example, but there will often be times when some users think the user is evidently a racist and others don't; a pointless and unpleasant debate about the correctness of the term would then ensue and the real conversation would be taken off track.  Commenting directly on the edits, rather than the person, is more likely to result in a helpful outcome.
 * That said, in the specific case you cite, I would not judge you harshly (as I say above, there would be "mitigating circumstances").
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:13, 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?


 * Right call. If the vandalism stops, the issue is dealt with and, presuming the admin's behaviour is fair and he or she has not been using his or her status to assist the vandals, there is no need for further action.
 * If this was me running the CU, I would probably also email the admin and tell him or her what we'd found. This ensures he or she "gets the hint" and, if he or she is not the vandal, could result in his or her being able to deal with the problem directly.
 * Yes, I do feel the type of vandalism makes a difference. If it is particularly nasty or damaging vandalism, especially if it is "outing" users or suchlike, I would be inclined to deal with this rather more severely than you describe.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:27, 10 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.


 * (b), presuming the one running the check in the second clause of the sentence is the uninvolved CheckUser. Members of the Arbitration Committee and CheckUsers (and, wherever possible, administrators) should avoid even the appearance of bias or of a conflict of interest.  Gaining respect from the wider community is necessary and is impossible if there are question marks over neutrality.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:27, 10 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?


 * This depends, of course, on the nature of the attacks. If they are legitimate criticism, it is wrong to penalise them.  Using off-wiki behaviour to justify on-wiki sanctions requires an unusual degree of problem behaviour.
 * If the Committee has decided previously that the Smythe account should be allowed to edit (presumably being satisfied that the off-wiki attacks did not contravene the above test), it makes no sense to ban at this point. I would probably (depending on specifics) support a lifting of the ban, probably with some kind of probation or remedy to ensure the harassing of Jones does not start again.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:27, 10 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?


 * There will sometimes be two ways a case can pass: 15-0 and 8-7. The 15-0 method should be preferred where possible: this much is obvious.
 * In some cases, there will be a hard-line faction in the Committee and a soft-line faction. Hopefully reasoned dialogue (as public as possible while maintaining frankness) can reach a positive solution that can garner wider support.  If not, I would strongly oppose solutions that are devoid of any positive action whatsoever; it is better to have a controversial remedy than a remedy that no-one really believes in.
 * Finally, I think it is always helpful for members of the Committee to be honest about the areas where they disagree, to give their reasons for disagreement (as far as possible, bearing in mind the privacy aspects to many cases) and even to be honest enough to say "we can't decide on this one" if there is no other solution.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:27, 10 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?


 * I expect the majority of my time on the project will be engaged in AC matters. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:27, 10 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?


 * My real name is Sam Korn; I am a student. I can't imagine any information that would require me to change my behaviour on-wiki.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:27, 10 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).


 * Well, to a certain extent A-E (with the current levels of Checkuser activity, I don't think I will need to be particularly active in that area). I am particularly keen to be involved in constructing decisions.  Obviously (B) and (C) are essential parts of the Arbitrator's job; (D) and (E) are, from what I see, relatively time-light commitments.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:54, 11 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?


 * I generally feel these are excellent proposals and deal intelligently with the concerns as raised in the RFC. As I mention elsewhere, I would like to see, in complex cases, a greater explanation of why a particular route was chosen (rather than an acrimonious and lengthy talk-page discussion after the case has closed), and a commitment on the part of the Committee to be as open and as frank as possible.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:54, 11 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.


 * Generally, I subscribe to the uncontroversial theory that more day-to-day authority is being given to administrators as a matter of course. This is healthy, provided it is well used.  We, as a community, are developing a more distributed and less magisterial approach to dispute resolution -- which I feel is generally a good thing -- making the Committee more a last resort than previously (case in point, the only case I've been part of as a participant -- this wouldn't get anywhere near the Committee these days).
 * There are other, lesser, factors that have contributed to this change, but I feel this is chief among them. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:54, 11 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 make the criteria for judging notability of living people significantly more testing. We have an ethical obligation to act responsibly with the power that comes from our prominence that I do not feel we currently live up to.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:54, 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?
 * The Committee should be incredibly wary of acting as a governing body; that is not its function. Its influence over policy comes from its ability to say "that action, even though policy allowed it/didn't allow it, was in the best interest of the project" and to take action accordingly, and thereby to shape popular perception and practice.
 * When the Committee does issue policy directly, it should be an emergency and an interim measure. The community should be consulted as far as possible as soon as possible.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:54, 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)
 * No, it should not. Giving the Committee too many powers is a bad idea.
 * I strongly feel that there should be a greater level of accountability for what goes on in IRC. Even though I do not feel personally that the problems are as severe as others suggest, I would like to see something like an IRC oversight panel, to deal with complaints and the like.  I would suggest it should comprise both of Wikipedians who use IRC and of Wikipedians who do not.  Channels would be privately logged.  It is important that accountability not only exist but be perceived to exist.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:54, 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?
 * As I explain to FT2 below, I am not intending to "reform" the Committee, but rather to attempt to regain popular trust by being open and accountable. I do not feel that the processes themselves are horrendously broken, but I do feel both the quality of and the respect for the Committee's decisions would be enhanced by increased openness.
 * As for how users can be sure I'll stick to my promises -- well, I can point you to another central tenet of my campaign statement: that of integrity. I believe my record as an editor, administrator and CheckUser bears out my claim that I abide by strong ethical principles; I hope this will earn me general trust as an arbitrator.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:54, 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.


 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
 * When a case takes over three months, there are clearly either serious problems with the Committee's handling of the matter or the case is ridiculously complicated. I don't know what happened with this particular case and post-mortems after this length of time are unlikely to be helpful, but I agree that cases shouldn't take this long.  This is for the sake of the involved parties, the Committee and the project as a whole.
 * 1) a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * The purpose of a WikiProject is to help editors build the encyclopaedia, on the principle that grouping together makes it possible to achieve larger goals than would otherwise be manageable. It should not be a "political" grouping -- it should be without a point-of-view.
 * Standards are set by consensus of users, not by fiat of WikiProjects. If there is consensus for the standardisation, it should be done.  The presence of a WikiProject should not make a difference in and of itself.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:14, 11 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)
 * No, WikiProjects do not have "rights". They are organisational entities -- there should be no point of view associated with one.  I do not think it prudent to answer in the case of the specific example you cite.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
 * That entirely depends on how it it is carried out. For the sake of appearance, I would always counsel against using IRC to seek out more "votes" for a principle.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:14, 11 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?
 * If an editor is acting in good faith but is being disruptive, that is an issue that needs either administrator or Arbitration Committee action. It is difficult to comment about specifics, but it is generally true that acting in good faith should not prevent you from being blocked if your actions are detrimental to the encyclopaedia.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:14, 11 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?
 * This obviously refers to a specific editor; I'll say now that I don't know who exactly. As a general principle, I would, as a member of the Committee, consider both the value added to the project by a user and the problems caused, even if those actions technically fall within policy.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:14, 11 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?
 * If an editor can genuinely not edit Wikipedia, it is not the job of members of the project to look after that user.
 * It would obviously be sensible to try to find someone who can communicate with the user to try to explain the problems.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban.
 * A community ban is justified when the community cannot be expected to put up with the disruption from a user any more. It should be a last resort, not a first port of call when someone is in a dispute with a user, and the question should actively be asked "can we resolve this in a less radical way?"  Only then should the question of a community ban be put.
 * Some of 5-7 could justify a ban, depending on severity and on the test I outline above. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:14, 11 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?
 * I feel that the biggest problems (and they aren't as big as perhaps we in the more "political" areas perceive) the community has boil down to a lack of assuming good faith and an over-eagerness to resort to sanctions rather than to attempt to resolve disputes non-confrontationally and cordially. (Of course, this is a two-sided coin -- it is difficult to engage non-confrontationally and cordially with someone acting confrontationally and unpleasantly towards you.)  Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 06:55, 8 October 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?
 * Taking the questions in the order 2-1&3, as that seems the more logical progression...
 * I do not find it useful to define exact terms for wheel-warring because to do so is to suggest that stopping one revert short is permitted (similar to the problems with 3RR). It is, of course, the undignified practice of reversing another admin's actions repeatedly.  The antidote is a genuine, respectful conversation.
 * My stance on wheel-warring is very much conditioned by this: if users are genuinely attempting to have a conversation about the matter, I would take the matter fairly lightly; if they aren't, I wouldn't have much generosity. Where an administrator action is controversial, it should be discussed carefully.  If you know an action to be controversial and deliberately fail to enter into discussion, you don't deserve much sympathy.  Wheel-warring is undignified and a betrayal of the trust gained at RFA.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
 * I do not disagree on principle with community desysopping. I would, however, need to see two points first before I could support a system:
 * a demonstration of why the current system (the Arbitration Committee having sole authority) is unsatisfactory
 * a demonstration of (a) how the new system would not have the potential for knee-jerk reactions and (b) how the new system would consider substantive issues rather than being simply an up-down vote.
 * Of course, I am speaking as a Wikipedian here, rather than as a prospective member of the Committee.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:40, 11 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 have no objection in principle to adminbots. All bots must be (a) carefully programmed to avoid damage and (b) carefully considered to determine that their function is highly desirable.  Adminbots must undergo higher scrutiny on both points as they have such a greater potential for damage.
 * I strongly feel that all adminbots should have a clearly evidenced community consensus behind them; those that currently do not should get such consensus as soon as possible.
 * I do not know enough about Twinkle's capacity for high-speed edits to comment knowledgeably. I will hold in general, however, that all administrator actions should be judged alike, regardless of whether they are automated or manual, particularly if the actions are sensitive (e.g. blocking, protecting).
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:40, 11 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 have to say I do not see a link between the cases strong enough to warrant merging. Perhaps it exists: there is a certain amount of common ground between the cases.  While noting that I have not read the case in depth, I would suggest that two smaller cases may have been easier for the Committee to handle.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:15, 12 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?
 * There is a massive logical leap in this question, the implication that Jdforrester was not impartial in this case. Perhaps that is true; I make no comment here.
 * Answering your question baldly (that is to say, ignoring the implications about Jdforrester), no, members of the Arbitration Committee should recuse when they are not able to be impartial. Fairness is important on Wikipedia: people are understandably upset if they feel they have not been dealt with equitably and this makes for an unhealthy and unhappy environment, as well as being profoundly unlikely to resolve disputes.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * The community should control the Committee's policy. This should, however, be done sensibly and with restraint.  The Committee's proper function is as a servant of the wider community, not as its instrument.  A certain amount of independence is extremely useful -- there would be no point in having the Committee if it were not to have that.
 * When creating the Committee's policy, it should be done in a consultative (not combative) fashion: the Committee is familiar with its processes and can say why particular items are problematic and how they can be improved. It is the community as a whole that must set the operating parameters for the Committee, but the Committee must have input lest the policy be somewhat unworkable.  The improvement, for example, in FT2's proposed changes to the Committee's policy compared to the original summary is marked, while still containing the principles as laid out in the RFC.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:15, 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.
 * I do not subscribe to the thinking that says that the Committee's authority has always come from the community, that the idea of it flowing from Jimbo has no relation to reality. That said, the authority of the Committee today clearly rests on the consent of the general community.  On these grounds, I find it very difficult to justify Jimmy's role as anything other than certifying the community's decision.
 * This would be different, of course, if it could realistically be said that Jimmy knew all the prospective members of the Committee personally. As it is, he plainly does not; he would have to act on the advice of the Committee itself, which I find similarly difficult to justify.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:52, 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?
 * At the time of the election, certainly not; all users should have a clear endorsement through the election procedure. I strongly feel that, barring the most extraordinary circumstances (i.e. more than just the "wrong" candidate being picked), those who come top in the election should be appointed.
 * Later on in the year, the point is less clear. Come September, the mandate provided by the election in December is more than nine months old and of questionable value.  If it was necessary to appoint more members of the Committee (which in itself seems unlikely), I could countenance appointing short-term arbitrators without a direct electoral mandate.  I say again that I find this highly unlikely; I very much expect that, were I to be appointed, I should never think it necessary to fill gaps for such a short period.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:15, 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?
 * The Arbitration Committee shall seek openness, fairness and integrity to the greatest degree possible.
 * If this (14 word!) principle is always followed, and is taken as the guiding principle of the Committee's action, I feel that the Committee would be as successful as it possible can be.
 * I don't apologise for not giving a concrete suggestion (as I feel the question was looking for...): concrete policies are important, but I rather think this more philosophical principle carries more weight than going into minutiae.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:15, 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 feel this is, to a certain extent, an impossible question. The Committee has few obligations to the Foundation, but the ones it does have are vitally important ones (often with real-life legal consequences).  The obligations to the community are far more important on an everyday level.  The two rarely stand in conflict -- determining which is "more important" is completely arbitrary and not, to my mind helpful.
 * Furthermore, I don't actually understand how the Committee, not being a monarchy, can serve or answer to itself -- I will discount this entirely.
 * Finally, I will say that I don't think the Committee can reasonably be said to "answer to Jimmy" any more -- its constitution has moved on significantly in the last four years and it is somewhat absurd to say that the Commitee's authority is delegated from Jimmy. The project is -- very rightly -- far more community driven than when I started editing.
 * My answer, therefore, is that the Committee serves the project as a whole. The project is (principally) made up of community and Foundation -- saying which is "more important" is slightly absurd as they are mutually dependent.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and again--good luck. rootology ( C )( T ) 00:55, 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)?
 * Excepting quite extraordinary circumstances, no. Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:15, 12 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?
 * Yes. Firstly, to avoid hypocrisy, I state now that any term I was elected to would end no later than two years after my appointment.  I have stated repeatedly that I think annual elections, with two tranches, is the best way of electing the Committee.
 * If elected, I would, soon after the appointment, ask the Committee members for their opinions. I expect there to be fairly widespread support for the idea.  The Committee would then make a formal recommendation to Jimmy, which I do not doubt he would accept.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:47, 12 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?
 * None of them. I am generally of the opinion that low-level civility issues are a problem, but not of the highest order of importance; A2 overstates their importance; A1 and A3 understate it.
 * With any problematic behaviour, you weigh the user's positive contributions against their negative ones. It isn't as simplistic as putting them on weighing scales and seeing which one goes down, but less leeway is given to someone who contributes positively to the encyclopaedia than to someone who does not.  That is hardly controversial.
 * Furthermore, I would also suggest that all of us get irritated at other users at times. The best way to deal with this is not to get irritated in return.  This is hardly a blank cheque allowing established users to engage in incivility at any time: any uncivil comment is problematic and needs to be dealt with, but it must be dealt with in a useful fashion.
 * The distinction should be made between low-level incivility and persistent low-level incivility. If it is the latter, and it is causing serious disruption, action should be taken.  It must, however, be a genuine problem; the solution must actually make the situation better.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?
 * None of them. I have never seen a civility restriction, or similar restriction, that has done anything but make the situation worse.  Users subjected to them understandably feel that they are constantly being watched and get more frustrated as a result, which ends up with more and worse incivility.  This isn't inevitable, but it is highly likely.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 do not feel "restrictions" are helpful. I would instead wish to attempt to talk respectfully with the user in question and to try to divert their energies more productively.  If a user will not making a good-faith attempt to change the behaviour that is causing disruption, ultimately I do not feel there is any sanction other than an outright ban that can have positive effect.
 * This should be very rare, and I doubt it would often happen. It would, however, be a better solution the wholly inefficacious civility restrictions currently in use.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Questions from Lar
Note to respondents: 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. Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.

use they were made by someone banned. I wish more people would try to damage Wikipedia by making useful, productive edits!
 * 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.
 * Firstly, the BLP approach is avowedly not correct in all aspects, though it is improving. I think the idea that we have an ethical duty towards the subjects of our biographies is beginning to be generally accepted and some more radical actions are being taken.  This is good news and gives me hope.
 * On the other hand, our approach is not vigorous enough and there is still frequent arguments between members of the community. What is fundamentally needed is a change in attitude that reflects our prominence and therefore our responsibility.  It is happening, but it needs to continue happening.  We must, as a project, do all we can to ensure that our biographies are of the highest editorial standard.
 * Taking this into consideration, there is an obvious corollary: that we should not have articles that we cannot keep in reasonable condition. I am opposed to (a), because I don't see it as sufficiently clear-cut: the debates over where people fall on each line will be just as bad as today's.  The general principle behind (b) -- that the standards for notability for living people should be significantly more testing -- is one I endorse fully and without reservation.  I would accept the system as presented there, although quite possibly there are other, more subtle ways of sorting it.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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.
 * a) It is a question of content policy, so both, to one degree or another.
 * b) I disagree in general with the Committee mandating policy. This should only be allowed in the most extreme cases, where not to mandate action would be dangerous and irresponsible.  Furthermore, it should be an interim measure, an attempt to give the community as a whole a kick to get a decent and long-term policy written.  The Committee's actions in the past have conformed to a certain degree with this, but not wholly.
 * c) I think (b) says how I would handle these things.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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 do not agree with this thesis. It's harder work to get consensus for changes, admittedly.  Something we have had to sacrifice is some idea of uniform application of policy, and that's alright, as long as the varying implementations are reasonable.  If we don't think of a matter having consensus as being "something everyone agrees on" and instead think of it as "something everyone can agree with", I think the problems would be made smaller.
 * Further, I would say that it has always been the case that getting consensus for the really big changes has been hard, ever since I started editing. Maybe it has got a little harder, but not by an order of magnitude.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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?
 * Firstly, I don't see the Committee as having any role whatsoever in this. The only possible role I can imagine is endorsing a community consensus to try the system and asking the developers to do so.  Even then I don't think it has to be the Committee; it merely could be.
 * I would not be absolutely opposed to the idea of flagged revisions. I think they have the potential to do a good deal to help particularly with biographies.  That said, I would want to consider properly (a) whether the system is manageable over a project the size of the English Wikipedia and (b) whether it actually will help, rather than being a lot of effort without any gain.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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)
 * a) Yes, I support it, on the grounds that I feel it aids the Wikipedia philosophy that it is not who you are but what you do that counts. Further, I think it is necessary for the safety of the more vulnerable members of our community.
 * b) I don't think it needs changing.
 * c) The project should do as much as possible to protect people who need to make their real-life identity as private as possible. We should do as much as we reasonably can to look after users (and even vandals).
 * d) That rather depends on how closely the two correlate. If it is trivial to discover and the user makes no effort to hide it, it can hardly be called outing.  The answer really is "quite possibly, though not necessarily".
 * e) I do use my real name as my username. I think it is a good idea for members of the Committee to reveal their real name, as it stops anyone having any kind of hold over them and it is also an inducement to behaving with integrity.  I don't, however, criticise any member of the Committee for not revealing their real identity, particularly on the grounds outlined in (a).
 * f) Yes, I think this is adequately clear -- I don't see how it could be made more clear. Indeed, I see little more that the Foundation or the Committee could do to make pseudonymity more reliable, except perhaps by taking stronger measures against those who would attempt to reveal non-public identities.
 * g) This is a very serious matter indeed. I cannot think of any mitigating circumstances that would warrant not banning the individual.  If the outing is targeted at the user in their function as a Wikipedian, I don't think it makes any difference at all where precisely the outing is done.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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?
 * a) The Foundation should do all it can to publicise the potential problems and how to avoid them. It is not, however, the Foundation's job to take care of the private identity of all its users.
 * b) The Foundation provides tools such as Oversight to deal with stalking and can intervene (e.g. legally) in the most serious cases.
 * c) We should, as a project, be as generous and as helpful as possible in these incidents; exactly how depends on the exact circumstances of the case.
 * d) As a project, we should ban the stalker. Wikipedia must not be used for this kind of activity.
 * I apologise for the lack of detail in the above responses -- the questions are not particularly relevant to the Arbitration Committee (they are far more relevant to the Foundation's board) and I haven't had time to give them a huge deal of thought.
 * e) The line is not particularly well-defined. What can start as useful checking of problem contributions can easily become harassment.  The judgement that needs to be made really is whether the scrutiny being applied is proportionate to the original user's activity and the fashion in which the scrutiny is applied.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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?
 * With some editors, allowing them to edit at all is dangerous for the project and, in particular, for individual members of the editing community. They must not be allowed to edit and blanket reversions must be done.
 * With less problematic users, I am generally opposed to the idea of reverting good edits simply becad the manner in which ArbComs are handled also seems not to need those abilities.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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? )
 * a) Since very early on indeed we have used external means of communication -- mailing lists have always been part of Wikipedia's discussion system, particularly for less-specific, "meta" issues. This is often helpful, as mailing lists make discussion rather easier than the wiki format, not being built for discussion.  I hold generally, however, that as much discussion as possible should be open and transparent.  Given that participation in mailing lists is now far less common, I feel that the vast majority of discussion should be held on-wiki.
 * b) No.
 * c) I think a lot of the discussion (the underlying assumptions and the vicious personal attacks especially) at Wikipedia Review is extremely unpleasant. I do not participate there as I neither wish to give more prominence to the unpleasantness nor wish to engage in what appears to be, in the vast majority of cases, banging one's head against a brick wall on the part of the editors who have a generally positive experience of Wikipedia.  Some participants have useful ideas; very many do not.  If members of the Wikipedia community wish to take part there, that is up to them.
 * (edit: I have been thinking about this some more since I first answered. Perhaps the strongest reason for not contributing there is that the tenor of the discussion is frequently highly unpleasant while the conversations are rarely productive.  Like Wikipedia at times, it seems a hostile atmosphere; unlike Wikipedia, there is very little to be gained from contributing.  Furthermore, I see that I missed the part of this question about Wikback -- I believe I only went to the site once to read a very specific comment, so I have no knowledge on which to base an answer. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC))
 * d) If they are engaged in legitimate, reasonable and temperate criticism, I think it is acceptable.
 * e) No, I do not. I do not think it sensible for members of the Arbitration Committee to covertly participate in such a site.  Firstly, they run the risk of being outed -- there is the potential for pressure to be put on them.  Secondly, it is unbecoming for such a senior member of the community not to have the confidence to stand by their opinions.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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)?
 * There is, of course, always the issue with a wiki that users who have contributed a lot are given too much leeway with their other behaviour. This should certainly be avoided.  The Committee must take great care to ensure that its actions against established users are fair, so that less established users are not discouraged.  That said, we must always bear in mind that we are an encyclopaedia and the Committee should recognise the positive contributions a user makes when making decisions. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Cologne blue. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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?
 * Firstly, we should be aware that we will not be able to fix this problem while we remain a wiki. Edit-warring in controversial areas is inevitable, so solving the problem is out.  But I think we can improve the situation and deal with it in a way that minimises its disruptive influence.
 * When users are editing Wikipedia for the sole purpose of pushing a point-of-view (i.e. when they are editing to affect real-world issues, rather than to make a better encyclopaedia), there is no place for them on the project. We emphatically do not need equal numbers of POV-pushers from either side to achieve NPOV.  If someone is editing to further their own goals, rather than Wikipedia's, we should have no qualms about showing them the door.
 * On the other hand, there are times when users are productive in some areas and unproductive in others. This is where more focussed remedies are needed.  In some cases, simply stopping the edit-warring will be enough to promote collegiality and useful editing, which is where revert restrictions are necessary.  In many cases, this will not be enough to stop the disruptive behaviour, so topic bans are necessary.
 * In general I am wary about community-based sanctions. By no means do I oppose them -- they are frequently an effective tool.  However, one of the main advantages of the slowness of the Arbitration system is that it does ensure that the matter is given all due consideration (ideally -- there have been unfortunate instances where this has not happened).  Where there is a complex matter along the lines that you describe, I would prefer the Committee deal with it in order to prevent the remedies' being ineffective, unfair or too severe.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:58, 19 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 do not feel civility restrictions have any positive effect. They anger their subject and cause what may have been a mild problem to become a severe problem.  This is likely to include anger directed at the Committee, making its job harder.  No-one seems to gain.  I would prefer to work with the user in question to try to work out why they are engaging in disruptive behaviour and how we can ameliorate the situation.  In extreme cases (and they would be very rare, I think), bans may ultimately be needed.  As civility is fairly (though not entirely) subjective, the block-unblock situation you outline frequently occurs; in such subjective cases, the Committee needs to offer a clear line that everyone can understand and respect.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:58, 19 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?
 * More than 50%, and with no passed-over candidates above me (absent the most extraordinary circumstances). Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
 * No, I do not feel that would be helpful, on the grounds that setting concrete numbers makes them easy to game. I do, however, commit as a matter of honour and principle to stand down if it is clear that the community has lost faith in my integrity or feels that my approach to the Committee's work is completely out of line with the community's wishes.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from UninvitedCompany

 * 1) Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
 * Over time, I have edited in various areas, including
 * cricket
 * Christian theology
 * history
 * and possibly others. More recently, the majority of my work has been in the "meta" areas, especially Checkuser, and in developing Sambot, updating cricket statistics.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
 * I am a theology student. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 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?
 * The only other online community I have had significant involvement in is backstreets.com, a forum about Bruce Springsteen, where I contribute under my own name. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 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?
 * I can't think of any, other than in that CheckUser investigations often involve dealing with matters quietly where that is appropriate. Perhaps I am misapprehending the question?  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 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?
 * I am a committed Anglican Christian, so in the unlikely event that there were disputes in that area (we're all lovely people who never argue), I would have to look carefully at my involvement. I have various opinions in the areas you outline, but not in such a way that I would feel unable to detach myself.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
 * I have been a member of my church's Parochial Church Council and briefly edited my church's monthly magazine. I am am member of a few committees at university, but none that are particularly interesting.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 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. If people find out my address and publicise it, I don't think I'll be overly concerned. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 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?
 * Not as far as I'm aware. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
 * I am a member of various mailing lists (WikiEN-l, Arbcom-l, Checkuser-l, Oversight-l, Wikimediauk-l). I idle in IRC, mainly so I can help when urgent CU or Oversight help is needed; occasionally I enter conversations.  I have been to a meetup and intend to go to more.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 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 think it is profoundly unhelpful to think of serving constituencies or particular groups of users. Members of the Committee are elected to serve the community as a whole, not to help particular groups or editors.  I comment about conflicts between "content" editors and "meta" editors here.  I don't seek to represent either "faction", nor to place one above the other.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept?  Refuse?
 * This question is very broad -- probably too broad for me to give a useful answer. I can't really say more than that the Committee should accept cases where it is useful for it to do so, where its involvement will make the dispute smaller, rather than greater.  I don't feel the current committee has this radically wrong.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
 * In most cases, this would be treated as no more than an aggravating factor in analysing a case. On the most severe occasions, it might be enough in itself to warrant a sanction.  On the other hand, I think it is not generally useful to bring outside disputes into cases where unnecessary and where the on-wiki behaviour is sufficient to justify remedies, etc.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 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")?
 * The more targeted a remedy can be, the better. I therefore support article- and user-specific editing restrictions, and "creative remedies", as you put it, where they will have a positive influence.  Asking what remedy works best is kind of like asking which shoe fits best -- it depends on the foot.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 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?
 * As I outline elsewhere, I am concerned to be proactive, rather than reactive, in explaining and justifying the Committee's decisions, saying why the Committee took a particular path. "Openness, wherever possible and as much as possible" would be my guiding idea.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most?  Why?
 * I am not going to give names, in order to promote collegiality and helpful relations, essential to the good running of the Committee. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
 * I'm not familiar with legal jargon, so I won't attempt to use it. The Committee should be convinced to a reasonable degree that the facts they are asserting are correct.  There is no "standard of proof", because this is not a courtroom.  We should not be obsessive about "proving" a fact to be the case -- we should be confident that it is the case and simply deal with it.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
 * While I am grateful for the work the Foundation does in coordinating the project, the software and the servers, I do feel that the Foundation is frequently excessively secretive and could benefit from being more open to the large number of users who are keen and able to help. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
 * While I was an OTRS volunteer way back in the dim and distant past (2005? not sure), I have not interacted recently with the system or the team. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
 * I'm not sure whether this question is referring to specific information not previously disclosed or types of information that have not been disclosed. In the first case, no, I see no reason to go through the archives and reveal information concerning closed affairs.  On the other hand, going forwards, I can imagine cases where previous committees would not have revealed information but where I would support doing so.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:17, 19 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?)
 * If we think "what's best for the encyclopaedia" can involve ignoring users as human beings, we have things absurdly wrong. That is the most crass utilitarianism and utterly ignores the fact that creating an encyclopaedia involves real people, whom we must respect as such, not merely for their contributions to the project.
 * I don't quite understand your hypothetical...
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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.
 * I'll ignore away then! Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * Requests for arbitration/Irate is the only one. The remedies were entirely appropriate and helpful, though they would not be handled by the Committee today -- administrators have much more authority to deal with such cases than they did in 2005.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:26, 19 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, to my awareness, or at least none in the last two years. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:26, 19 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).
 * None, that I recall. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Badger Drink

 * 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?
 * Firstly, I take issue with the assumption that there have been cases that have been handled badly because the members of the Committee did not want to disrupt Committee harmony. I do not feel this is generally accurate.  Members of the Committee are allowed to change their minds, even if that change is the result of non-public conversation: it should generally not be assumed that a change of heart on the part of a member of the Committee is anything other than a good-faith, genuine act, influenced by sound argument and evidence.
 * I'm not familiar with this term "screwing the pooch" -- though I presume it means something along the lines of "seriously mess up". In line with my commitment elsewhere on the page, I am not going to comment on my opinion of recent decisions, as I could not do so without breaching the privacy of the private mailing list to which I am party.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
 * As this is a matter of process, rather than a decision as such, I don't mind commenting. What is clearly the case with this (taking into account the other pages given at the time) is that FT2 was attempting to get things moving along in the Committee.  He is to be praised for this.  However, it is clear in retrospect that there was not consensus for the decision, or indeed for several of the other announcements.  Blame for this is not to laid solely at FT2's door -- the concerns are clearly also with the whole decision-making and communication process of the Committee.  I am pleased to see that the Committee is currently actively moving towards public voting on the majority of matters.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:58, 19 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?
 * As I discuss elsewhere, I feel there are several points that are positive that came out of that RFC, though I think in general that RFCs are hideous ways of forming policy -- it is extraordinarily long, far too long for me to read. I think in particular that the following are helpful suggestions
 * shorter terms (2 years is appropriate for me)
 * re-affirming "no new policy"
 * re-affirming "no secret trials"
 * making a commitment to communicate in as clear language as possible
 * committing to have at least a week of evidence-submission before a proposed decision is made, except in extraordinary circumstances.
 * As I comment to Newyorkbrad's question, I think the proposed policy changes made by him and FT2 are excellent.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:58, 19 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)


 * I will note first that this was an extraordinary case and holding cases in private is highly undesirable.
 * Secondly, I agree that developing a comprehensive and balanced summary of evidence for use in private cases is sensible. The system you outline would, I think, be effective.  Should such a situation occur in the future, I would support instituting something along these lines.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:03, 19 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.
 * Determining the reliability of sources is not the job of the Arbitration Committee. It is absurd to think that I, a theologian, should be in the position to determine the reliability of a scientific journal.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * The intent of the policy is that we should not shy from covering encyclopaedic topics in an educational manner in order to be "family-friendly" or "work-safe". This an intellectually and academically laudable position to take and we are quite right to do so.
 * It does mean that some people cannot use Wikipedia and that others have a bad opinion of it. Wikipedia should, however, not try to be all things to all people.  We are not building a "child-safe" encyclopaedia, but we do make our content available under free licences so that other people can.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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.
 * Firstly, this is a content question, so it would not be in the remit of the Arbitration Committee. Moreover, it is not a subject I know anything about, so my response will be coloured by that.
 * Secondly, "popular views" are not a reliable source. If the surveys you discuss exist, include them.  If they don't, you can't make statements like "most residents of the United States would strongly disagree with such a conclusion": that violates pretty much every single one of our content policies.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * These three questions are very difficult for me to answer in respect to my having been an arbitrator in the past, given the time elapsed since I was on the Committee. To give justice to them, I would have to spend a long time working through those cases; I don't think that would be a profitable use of my time to find what are generally fairly plain statistics that would reflect the constitution of a committee radically different to today's.
 * With regards to more recent cases, over the last year or so, I have not read through many cases in huge detail -- I have had other exigences on my time. I have, however, had the privilege of participating in and seeing discussion on the Committee's mailing list, and have generally looked at cases where interesting or controversial.  There are few cases where there is a divide in the Committee, and certainly I do not recall disagreeing with a unanimous decision of the Committee.  There are a few cases where I have not agreed with the majority decision handed down -- perhaps one in ten.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?
 * I think the "motions and clarifications" process works well, though a little more energy on the part of the members of the Committee would not go amiss. Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * I refer you to my candidate statement, which I believe already addresses these issues. The prime cause is, I think, a lack of clarity about what the Committee is doing and a feeling of disconnection with the process.  Running under a banner of "integrity" and "openness" is my response to these concerns.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Questions by Shoemaker's Holiday
I'm going to ask you the same questions I asked Jdforrester - they're questions I feel all sitting arbitrators seeking re-election should be able to answer. The first is one I think you'll have some sympathy with, given your candidate statement:


 * 1) Can you give examples of when you have taken a principled stand against others in the committee? (As the Arbcom is almost entirely self-regulating, the independence of the sitting arbitrators is important)
 * 2) Can you comment on the recent Arbcom RFC, and how you feel the concerns addressed should be dealt with by the Arbcom?

Thank you, and best of luck with your bid for re-election. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Sam is not a sitting Arbitrator, but rather an ex-arb. He retired from the Committee in 2006. I'm not sure whether that makes a difference to the relevance of these questions (probably not), but I wished to observe this fact nonetheless. AGK 19:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, to be absolutely precise, I am not a sitting arbitrator, and I haven't been for nearing two years.
 * I'm afraid that I can't remember many specifics from when I was on the Committee in 2006, so I can't easily refer you to cases from that time. On matters under recent consideration by the Committee, in the period that I have been on the mailing list, I have not considered it my role to take "principled stands" -- my role has been to give advice where useful, not to engage in advocacy.  (I do have certain concerns about the presence of former members of the Committee on the mailing list for this reason -- that there is the potential for advocacy -- though I personally feel my presence is a help.)  Without doubt there have been decisions that I have disagreed with, but it feels a breach of trust to give my opinions, which cannot but be influenced by knowledge obtained through participation in a private mailing list.
 * I apologise, that's fine. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a low opinion of the RFC process in general for matters such as this -- the sheer length of the page demonstrates the difficulty that anyone without strong motivation would have in contributing. I fully endorse several of the principles as elucidated at the summary (sorry, I'm not going to read the whole thing).  Several are already policy/practice (no secret "trials", no new policy, clear statements, minimum period for evidence except in exceptional cases).  Other points I wholly endorse include shortening terms (to two years) and making all votes public.  I strongly support reworking the AC policy to include these points where possible and implementing them as a matter of practice where not.  My opinion is that the most sensible way to pursue this is for the Committee as newly seated in January to make a proposal for ratification by the community and I will press for such action to be taken.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from FT2
These are some questions about WP:CLUE and insight, focussing on a role as a member of Arbcom. Research is allowed and encouraged.


 * 1) There is clear agreement that all is not well, in all ways, at Arbcom. Many users standing will be hoping to change that, as many did last year. What aspects work well, and what are the core changes you feel would help change the ones that don't?
 * I do not feel that the Committee needs a complete revolution -- throwing out all the current practices and starting again from the beginning. Most cases are, I think, well-handled, or as well-handled as possible.  There are, however, a few things that I would want to change.
 * Most prominently, I think it would be extremely beneficial to have significantly more transparency in creating Committee decisions. This includes use of the Workshop (Kirill and NYB among current members of the Committee are excellent at this), but it also includes giving more detailed rationales for decisions when they are controversial.  Not only must the decisions themselves be justified, but it must be explained why alternative routes have been rejected.  When the Committee was originally formed, it was the intention for decisions to be handed down in prose, rather than in the intensely structured fashion now used.  While I would not want to do away with the current format (it makes it very easy to quickly understand a decision), I would perhaps add obiter dicta explanations where useful.
 * There have been proposals in the past for assigning particular roles to particular members of the Committee (e.g. one member would be responsible for ban appeals, three would be responsible for writing decisons, etc.). While I would not want this system, I think it would make a lot of sense for a "to-do" list to be as public as possible, noting which members of the Committee are dealing with particular items.  This would create a healthy incentive for members of the Committee to deal with issues promptly.  I am in the unusual situation of knowing much of what goes on "behind the scenes": I feel a lot of this could be brought out from behind the scenes.  Transparency is good for general trust in the Committee.
 * Obviously not all matters can or should be publicly debated (and occasionally it may be best for the matter to be handled as quietly as possible for the benefit of all concerned). I recognise further that it might make life easier for the members of the Committee if their work is fairly private, and they might even do better work: I believe, however, that being as public as possible aids the general work of the Committee by enhancing confidence in the body and in its members.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) (Not salient for past arbitrators)
 * 2) Two questions, or two sides of the same question. Your choice.  a) Arbcom involves matters that Arbitrators may decide need to be kept out of the public domain, for various reasons that vary between privacy breach and avoidance of harm, to reducing disruption. You-personally-may come under suspicion from some users regarding such matters if you do so. It is unlikely that you will be able to do the job properly without offending a range of users, and unlikely you will be able to always explain your actions as an admin might in a range of circumstances. Thoughts?  b) As the community has become more versatile in handling everyday forms of disruptive conduct, Arbcom cases have tended to cover a higher proportion of cases where privacy is a significant issue, and cases where there are factors involved that some will argue cannot be fully disclosed due to privacy, WP:BEANS or other effects that would be harmful to the project. At the same time the community wishes greater levels of disclosure, and some will demand it, often without regard to harm (which they may not be aware is a possibility if their requests are met). Communal benefit, or user safety, may be at risk in some of these. And yet you are also there to do right by the project and community. You will be a decision-maker in the question of what to make public, and indeed, when to not even explain why something will not be made public (because of concerns over consequences or fairness). Thoughts?
 * It is my belief that the majority of users are prepared to accept the good faith of members of the Committee if they are seen to be doing their best and if they explain what they are doing and why. If other users find reason not to trust me, that is unfortunate.  I can only give my commitment to be as honest, as open and as capable as I possibly can be.  If I know I have done this, and users still do not trust me, I'm afraid there is little I can do and I would accept that.  In other words, I am prepared to take unfair criticism; I see it as an unfortunate but inevitable part of the job.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) (Not salient for past arbitrators - user evidences durability)
 * 2) Many disputes stem from poor following of communal norms (including policies), or norms that are problematic, insufficient, disputed or conflicting in the face of some new kind of issue. When standards lapse, or dispute arises due to such issues, how hard should Arbcom push the community in expressing the pursuit of higher standards or better consensus as a "need" rather than a "request"?
 * It is vital to remember that the Committee is not a governing body. Its remit is to settle disputes, with a few additional responsibilities: it is not the Committee's job to be defining how policy should be followed in a general fashion.  Behavioural standards can be encouraged by the Committee, but they should not be mandated.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) If appointed, what would you consider your personal sense of "your mandate" to be? (This is not asking what Arbitrators should do; rather it is asking what you see as your personal special agenda, or "matters and issues to especially focus on", out of all the areas of Arbitrator work and activities, as a Committee member.)
 * Restoring general confidence in the Committee, particularly through openness that has characterised the most successful aspects of Wikipedia. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How will being on Arbcom affect your actions, or choices about how to act, in other capacities - as an editor, user, admin, or the like?
 * I am, as a CheckUser, already well aware of the fashion in which having additional "authority" makes it necessary to be cautious in what you say and the actions you take. This is for two reasons: firstly, you are expected to exemplify a high ethical standard so that you can demand the same of others; secondly, other people can interpret casual comments as edicts where that is not the intention.  Being on the Committee, therefore, makes it necessary to weigh up the actions you take carefully, being fully aware of the potential impact your role gives them.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I expect to add a couple more to these, and will be interested to see the results. They are intended to be searching. Feedback will be provided. Thank you. FT2 (Talk 19:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Giggy (again)
You were an arbitrator at the age of 17. The WMF privacy policy was approved during the time that you were on ArbCom (June 2006). What is your opinion on under-18 users obtaining access to private material, and on your time on the ArbCom in particular? Giggy (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously at the time of my previous appointment the current rules about identification did not exist (they are separate from the privacy policy -- the relevant policy is Access to nonpublic data policy). I don't know the exact sequence of events off the top of my head, but the policy requiring identification and evidence of being over 18 did not come into existence while I previously had the tools (I gave them up at the end of my term as I went on an extended break from the project).  During that time, I became aware of the concerns and thought them valid and discussed the point with Brad Patrick, the Foundation's interim ED; the requirement to identify came after this.
 * Having now thought about the matter at some length, I agree fully with the Foundation's requirement for those with the CheckUser and Oversight tools. Furthermore, I agree that it is necessary for members of the Arbitration Committee to meet the same requirements.  We should keep our promise to our users and go above and beyond the requirements of the privacy policy in protecting users' data.
 * I am not sure what the last clause of your question is asking -- perhaps you could clarify?
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry - you've answered my question (though I was (characteristically) unclear... sorry about that). Giggy (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Biophys
I noticed the following message at your talk page: "Welcome to my talk page... This may sound odd, but I do not delete personal attacks on my user page... I may well indefinitely block anyone who places a "smile" (or anything similarly inane) on this page." Does it serve to minimize the number of unnecessary questions? I felt uneasy while reading your welcoming message.Biophys (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, that is intended to be a joke! On the grounds that it's made someone feel uneasy, I've removed it.  I hope the idea of blocking someone for leaving a smile telling me to have a nice day is silly enough, though!  Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Now I feel better and will not hesitate asking you any questions if they arise.Biophys (talk) 15:01, 18 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 ·:· 11:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Have you used other accounts this year?  Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?
 * No, only Sambot. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Levity is rarely inappropriate, especially on Wikipedia where we can take ourselves a little too seriously. I would, however, suggest that, out of respect for the other people who are members of this community, joke accounts should be used only with the greatest caution in areas such as RFCs, Arbitration cases and elections, because other people take these matters seriously.  It is unfair and demeaning to them to casually disrupt the process.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Firstly, I should like to mention the extraordinary work that a lot of members of the community do to work against returning trolls, working in CheckUser, SSP and other areas. This work is the key to the problem.
 * We can't get rid of these users. Wikipedia would not be successful if it were not radically open: being unable to fully rid ourselves of trolls is the price we pay for our philosophy of openness.  To minimise their impact, we have to take them seriously but at the same time not get ourselves too worked up.  I think the handling of sock checks etc is generally already effective, although WP:SSP2 would be great.  I would, of course, be delighted to hear new suggestions about how we can improve.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from harej
Assess this statement: "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee exists to promulgate the good times." To what extent is this statement valid, and to what extent should things change to reflect this statement? --harej 01:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Rspeer
Sorry about not getting this in the general questions.

In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is science a point of view, or is it a way of finding the neutral point of view? Does it differ based on the topic of the article?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  02:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Acalamari
Apologies if you have already answered similar questions above.

1. There appears to be a belief among some editors that if someone has contribtued a lot to Wikipedia and/or are well-known/liked, they are exempt from certain policies, such as civility. What is your opinion on this?

2. In the past, some users have remained on perfect behavior as an non-admin, yet upon obtaining the tools, they become uncommunicative, uncivil when they actually do communicate, become negative or annoying, take a hard-line stance against other RfA candidates, etc. What is your opinion on this?

3. In relation to question 2, under what circumstances would you agree that someone should be desysopped for reasons other than abuse of the tools?

Thanks for your time. Acalamari 17:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Ncmvocalist
1. This question pertains to the current request to amend the Matthew Hoffman case decided in 2007. Assume you are part of the Committee, and just returned from a wikibreak. You are presented with that request and other statements/comments/replies that are currently viewable. (a) Do you consider this case to be distinct from other cases - if so, how? (b) Would you support a motion to vacate the case? (c) How would you have voted on each of the current motions and why? (d) Would you have made an alternate motion proposal - if so, what would it be? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Al tally

 * 1) Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly, without any issues. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.
 * 2) See this oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds just like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' [Arbitrators] 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' [Motions, voting to reject, accept etc. Basically, a community version of ArbCom]. Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator. Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone without going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).
 * 3) Former Arbitrators - should they lose CU/OS privs, and access to the Mailing list? After all, they resigned, so aren't interested in doing the work. Therefore, they have no need for such rights. If you resigned, would you surrender such privs?
 * 4) Recall - if the community have an issue with your use of CU/OS, or actions as an Arbitrator, what effective way can they address this? (Taking it to ArbCom is the wrong answer, by the way).

Good luck with the election!  Al Tally  talk  19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions by Pohta ce-am pohtit
Two questions related to the balance of power between ArbCom and admins. Pcap ping  16:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Do you think that the special civility restrictions enacted by ArbCom in several cases have been successful? If not, what would you do propose instead?
 * 2) Should a single admin A be allowed to undo an action of another admin B when the latter is claiming to act under the provisions of an ArbCom case (WP:AE)? If the answer is no, what should be done about admin A?

Question from Ling.Nut

 * I'm asking this of everyone; it didn't occur to me to ask 'til after the "general questions" were closed. This also isn't a vanity question intended to pump my essay. I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
 * Would you please read the (very, very, very short) essay at User:Ling.Nut/3IAR and indicate how much you agree or disagree with its points? If it helps at all, the essay was originally written as a response to an admin who insisted that I was not permitted to make my talk page a redirect to my user page. He did so even though there is (or was at that time?) no rule or guideline to this effect, and far more importantly, even though my actions were harming neither the encyclopedia nor any of its editors.
 * Thank you for your time. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 15:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up questions from FT2
Thank you for your first answers, broadly on yourself and Arbcom.

These are some questions about your skill at Wikipedia dispute resolution:

(Note:- in a lot of cases, a remedy may potentially be "multi stage"; that is, take a step, see what effect it has, return to it if needed. This may include watching or warning first times, taking a tougher line later, or deciding it's an acceptable risk if they act up again, since action could be taken in future if needed. Although mild, it's a valid approach. I'd be fine if you use it, and what you do when it fails.
 * 1) Flexibility:
 * a) What experience do you have at a range of Wikipedia dispute resolution "styles", and in estimating how users may react to a given response? (This is a fairly essential skill in deciding whether to play hard or soft, direct or mediated, give another chance, discuss further, draw a line, or "try something new" in a case.)
 * b) Please outline your track record at choosing remedies that are effective, but not overly-excessive, in a sample of difficult cases.
 * c) Please show some cases you gave a seemingly difficult user a chance to reform (when others were skeptical), and where you drew a very hard but fair line on a problematic user.
 * d) Please highlight a project space matter where there was much divisive opinion but where other administrators (on both "sides") listened to you, and you helped focus or resolve it.
 * 1) Conduct under pressure:
 * a) Please point out a case you took a stand that was not universally popular, knowing you could face retaliation or rebuke.
 * b) Please point out a matter where you were badly attacked, accused, or heavily provoked, but remained in line with "best practice" conduct, yourself.
 * c) Please point out a dispute where you faced people trying to redirect the matter to a side-issue (soapbox, hobby horse, etc) and your response was to avoid the "invitation" of distraction, and to keep the focus on the main target.
 * d) Please point out a serious dispute which occupied your attention for between 2 weeks and several months, and which shows your sticking power and handling in the context of protracted disputes.

Like the previous questions, they are intended to be searching. Feedback will also be provided. Thank you. FT2 (Talk 04:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from Pixelface
I am asking all candidates the following additional questions: Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
 * 2) How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
 * 3) What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
 * 4) Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * 5) Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * 6) Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Arbitration policy?
 * 7) Do you think it is a requirement that subjects must be "notable" in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about them? If so, how does one determine if a subject is "notable"?
 * 8) Do you think the statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (which appears on the WMF's donation page) conflicts with the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Why or why not?
 * 9) Imagine a situation where an editor consistently nominates 50 articles from the same category for deletion every day with a nearly identical reason for deletion. Other editors object to this, and several threads at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, but no user RFC is filed. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
 * 10) Considering the following scenario: An editor nominates all 17,000+ articles in Category:Asteroids for deletion at once and bundles them in a single AFD, with the reason for deletion "Asteroidcruft." The AFD is closed early by an admin, and the admin tells the editor not to bundle so many articles together in a single AFD. The next day, the editor nominates 200 asteroid articles for deletion using an automated tool, with the reason for deletion for each being "Asteroidcruft." A second editor, who is a member of WikiProject Astronomical objects, is checking their watchlist and sees many asteroid articles being nominated for deletion. The WikiProject member asks the first editor on the first editor's talk page to please stop nominating asteroid articles for deletion. The first editor tells the WikiProject member that he will not stop until every asteroid article is deleted from Wikipedia. The WikiProject member starts a thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the situation, and later starts a thread at WT:ASTRO about the ANI thread. WikiProject members show up to the AFDs and argue to keep in all of them. At the ANI thread, several WikiProject members and several editors feel that the first editor is being disruptive. A second admin blocks the first editor for disruption, but asks for a review of the block at Administrators' noticeboard. At AN, several admins think the first editor is being disruptive, but several admins agree with what the first editor is doing, and several editors express their disdain for the WikiProject in general. A third admin unblocks the first editor, and the first editor continues to nominate 200 asteroid articles for deletion every day. Several threads at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, some initiated by members of WikiProject Astronomical objects, some initiated by editors, but no user RFC is filed on the first editor. The first editor never comments at AN/I, but replies again and again on their user talk page that they feel that Wikipedia should not have any articles on individual asteroids. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
 * 11) Wikipedia is a non-profit wiki and Wikia is a for-profit wiki and both were founded in part by Jimbo Wales. Do you think Wikipedia editors should be required to publicly disclose if they are employees/shareholders/editors of Wikia? Do you think Jimbo Wales has the power to make them do so? Do you think the arbitration committee has the power to make them do so?