Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/SirFozzie/Questions for the candidate

=General questions=
 * General Questions submitted by the users indicated. For more information, please see the guidelines posted here.

Arbitrators' skills
(1) Thank you for running, and good luck with your candidacy. What do you find to be the most important characteristic of a successful arbitrator on Wikipedia? This can be either a historic trait seen in one or more of the 53 arbitrators who have served since 2004, or an ideal trait that you would like to see in future arbitrators. (UltraExactZZ)
 * A: The ability to cut through the multiple levels of attacks, and to grasp the core nettle of the case. most ArbCom cases turn into a mini-cosm of the dispute, and it can be difficult if not impossible to get to the core issues when it's surrounded by pages and pages of "He started it! Did Not! Did Too! But He Deserved It!" that ArbCom cases can degenerate into.

(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. (Tony1)
 * A: would be my suggestion at a good foot to put forward to your answer.

(3) 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 the requests page) and for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
 * (D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Banned User Subcommittee or considering the subcommittee's recommendations;
 * (E) Overseeing the granting and use of Checkuser and Oversight permissions, including vetting candidates for these privileges and supervising elections for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
 * (F) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;
 * (G) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
 * (H) Carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators generally are given oversight privileges also);
 * (I) Internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming Arbcom-l mailing list traffic, reminding colleagues of internal deadlines, and the like;
 * (J) Assisting with policy- and procedure-related discussions, such as working to finalize the long-pending revision of the Arbitration Policy;
 * (K) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain). (Newyorkbrad)
 * A: A-F is the minimum that I think any Arbitrator should be doing (note: I don't mean that all at once!), but I would avoid G and H until such time that I have familiarity with the CheckUser and Oversight tools, and there is a need for me to use those tools. I, Well.. I think that I may not be the best person for that task, but I can do my best.. and J is something that I think Arbitrators should be doing.

Challenges of being an arbitrator
(4) As an arbitrator you will find that most of your work is done away from enwiki, either on mailing lists or on the private Arbitration wiki. How will you cope with the tension between the community desire for openness and the need for confidentiality for personal information about parties to arbitration decisions? (Sam Blacketer)
 * A: I will try to be as open as possible with my thoughts and decisions as a case progresses, if elected. If I write a proposed decision, I will add a paragraph or two to each principle, finding, etcetera to indicate how I came to that point. If I'm voting on someone else's proposed decision, I will endeavor to again explain how I came to that decision. In general, private information has to remain just that, but I will endeavor to explain WHY I can't comment on information.

(5) Sociologists have spotted that individual members of groups of people sometimes suppress independent and dissenting thoughts which they think may be unpopular with the other group members. As the Arbitration Committee depends on the cohesion of its members, and has to take controversial decisions, do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid this approach of 'groupthink'? If so, what steps would you take? (Sam Blacketer)
 * A: I don't particularly think groupthink will be an issue. There are a lot of strong personalities already on the Arbitration Committee.. and no one can accuse me of being a shrinking violet or of being afraid to take up unpopular opinions.

(6) I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator? (Juliancolton)
 * A: I'd LIKE to see admins, crats, and arbs all as functional as possible in the content side of WP, and not just the conduct side. If we streamline things, I'm hoping it'll be possible for arbs to spend some time away from the conduct side, and be an editor, to decompress from the high stress areas.

(7) Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic to you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you actually read? (Tznkai)
 * A: To be honest, as I am not a member of any of those lists, I cannot say how much traffic I can anticipate on these lists. However, I will say that I will read every bit of email that I can THAT PERTAINS TO THE JOB I'd be doing as an arbitrator.

(8) An arbitrator who is a participant in a case, and thus recused from acting in his or her official capacity, still retains access to confidential materials (mailing list posts, the ArbCom wiki, etc). Is her or his reading these materials acceptable? What (if any) use of these materials by the recused arbitrator is acceptable, and what safeguards (if any) are needed to prevent inappropriate usage? I am thinking (for example) about actions like making case-related comments on the ArbCom list, emailing editors who have submitted private evidence, and posting additional evidence / comments on wiki relevant to concerns expressed privately by the other committee members. Should inappropriate usage be dealt with publicly on wiki, or privately between ArbCom members? (EdChem)
 * A: I'd hope that any arbitrator who is an active participant in a case (and thus obviously recused) should not be accessing information that they have no right to access. In the past, there has been discussions about temporarily suspending the access of any arbitrator who is a participant in an active case to the mailing lists and evidence. Misuse of this information should be dealt with publicly and harshly, if found out. Arbitrators are elected for their good judgment. Using one's priviliged permissions as an arbitrator to use this information unethically is SPECTACULARLY bad judgment.

Answered: SirFozzie (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom and admins
(9) Should the process of (a) reviewing admin actions that may have breached policy, and (b) desysopping, remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo), or would you prefer that a community-based process also perform these roles? (LessHeard vanU)
 * A: I think the community can review issues with administrator policy breaches, and recommend administrators have their bit removed via existing Dispute Resolution procedures (RfC's and referring to RfA). I do not support "Mandatory Community Recall" (what I call the "one-sized-does-not fit-all" method). Existing proceedures do work (see the R.Fiend RfA), and any mandatory standards would be too easy to game. Administrators would be discouraged to try to resolve issues in contentious ares.

(10) Over the past year Arbcom has desysopped a number of admins. Generally do you think Arbcom has (a) not desysopped enough (b) got it about right (c) desysopped too much over this period? Why? (Davewild)
 * A: I generally think that they got it right, with one or two exceptions that I think were at least in the gray areas. Most of them were obvious (sock puppets, repeated bad judgement, etcetera)

(11) Do you support or oppose the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval? (Finn Casey)
 * A: Only in specific cases (where ArbCom has specifically set it up as an option, etcetera.)

(12) Would you consider taking a case where it is clear that an admin has lost community trust, but there has been no RfC or attempts to resolve the issue? (Majorly)
 * A: If there's no attempts to do a RfC or resolve the issue, where is it clear that the admin's lost the community's trust?

(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A:Permanent de-adminning? None. Temporary, until such time as a motion or a case can be heard about them? Wheel-wars, or issues where we REALLY need to hear back from the administrator on what the heck is going on (possibly compromised accounts, administrators running undisclosed alternate accounts, etcetera).

(14) If it's discovered that an admin is a sock of a banned user, and that some users (including, but not only, admins) who had voted in Example's RFA knew this at the time, what measures should be taken against those voters? (Od Mishehu)
 * A:I've gone back and forth on this one. The way I describe it is a sin of OMISSION, instead of a sin of COMISSION, and yes, I consider there to be a difference., I suggested that it be enshrined in policy that aiding and abetting other users into knowingly breeching sanctions to be an example of bad judgement (and repeated instances of bad judgement is what loses administrators their bits).

ArbCom's role and structure
(15) Over the past year Arbcom has made a few change in how it runs, such as introducing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee and establishing the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. What changes (if any) would you make in how the Arbitration Committee works? (Davewild) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A:I would continue to look for ways to streamline the Committee, taking a serious look at ideas like having cases heard by a subset of arbitrators, delegating sections of authority to various arbitrators on a rotating basis (like the ban appeals subcommittee). What we have had so far is a good start. But it's a start. Not the complete package.

(16) In last year's election one of the successful candidates said in answer to a question "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generally be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree or disagree, and why? (Davewild)
 * A:I generally agree. The Arbitration Committee should not be in the busy of making policy by fiat. What they CAN do is point out areas where policy is muddled, unclear, or contradictory, and lead the discussion to get it clarified. Note that I'm not saying that the guy or gal with the ArbCom hat on has magical powers to set any particular policy in any discussion. If I am elected, there can and will be times when I'm speaking as an Arbitrator, but when it comes to policy discussions and article discussion, I'm just another editor

(17) ArbCom cases divert vast amounts of editor time and goodwill into often pointless arguments, causing constructive editors to feel oppressed and disillusioned, and leading to "remedies" that are in fact retributive punishments (often ill-targeted) that fail to remedy any real problems. Do you agree, and what would you do about it? (Kotniski)
 * A: I think we need to look at establishing a code of conduct in cases before the Arbitration Committee. Every time I've followed a case before the Arbitration Committee.. I could look at the spot when there was no possibility of new information being added to the case, and that's when the bickering between the parties reaches its peak. I call this the Barenaked Ladies part of the ArbCom timeline, as in their song "It's All Been Done Before". They are left attacking each other, and things quickly get heated from there. A thought off the top of my head may be that if a member of ArbCom or an ArbCom clerk decides that all the relevant information has been posted, they may warn the parties that they have a certain amount of time (like 72 hours, or 1 week), to post any relevant info to the Evidence or Workshop pages, and then they will be locked (edit full protected) until such time as the Proposed Decision is ratified. (of course, any extraordinary or late information can be submitted to the Arbitration Commitee as needed, and if it is something that needs discussion, etcetera it can be posted)

(18) Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why? How important is the ArbCom dispute resolution process? (Camaron/Majorly)
 * A:I think that any project the size of the English Wikipedia does need a top level dispute resolution process, and the ArbCom is that. For other, smaller projects, it may serve better to be more agile and less structured, but I think that Dispute Resolution would be much more chaotic here on EN-WP without an ArbCom-type authority. If it wasn't here, we'd have to invent it.

(19) A number editors in the community have expressed concern that the Arbitration Committee is becoming too powerful and expansive in response to some committee actions including the creation of the Advisory Council on Project Development and BLP special enforcement. Do you agree with them? How will you deal with such concerns if you are successfully elected to the committee? (Camaron)
 * A:I'm mixed. I think such things should be taken on a case by case basis. I happen to agree with BLP-SE, as BLP is a very touchy area going forward, but as I said above, ArbCom members should be LEADING the discussion, they shouldn't be dominating the discussion.

(20) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made any direct content rulings, i.e., how an article should read in the event of a dispute. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Should it sanction users for repeated content policy violations, even if there is no record of repeated conduct policy violations? Can the committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? (Heimstern)
 * A:ArbCom decides conduct issues, not content issues. ArbCom can be useful in areas where users are acting as a roadblock for consensus building. I can understand how folks would look at asking ArbCom for guidance on content. Members of ArbCom, after all, are elected for their judgment and ability. However, I would not automatically assume that it makes the ArbCom somehow Solomonic in their wisdom. You're asking folks who probably do not have any experience in that area (and those who MAY know that area may or may not be recused in the case) to set their judgement over those who work in the area. I've seen one attempt by ArbCom to try to set such frameworks for discussion, and that was in the Ireland naming dispute. To be quite honest, I don't think it was a great success.

(20-Supplemental) Hi, SirFozzie. After seeing your answer to the first question I wrote here, particularly the part about how the only case you knew in which AC had tried to set up discussions was the Ireland naming dispute, I wanted to point you to Centralized discussion/Macedonia, which was also initiated by the Committee. Would it be possible for you to comment on the the possibility of AC using further solutions similar to this? It's information I'd need to be able to decide on my vote. (I know, more questions...) For my purposes, it's fine if you just write it here; you only need bother putting it at your question page if you think it's good for others to see it too. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are as follows. It needs to be a controlled environment, and attempts to inflame the volatility of the situation need to be relentlessly stamped out. The second a content discussion becomes a conduct discussion.. the chances for a successful resolution drop greatly. It seems to have helped somewhat in the Macedonian situation, but with a lots of fits and starts, and it doesn't stop all the issues, but maybe it's not completely not worthwhile. I'd need to see evidence that the parties are willing and able to enter such a binding mediation before it happens, and make it clear that if they DO enter it, then the results WILL be binding.

Thanks for the additional question.. SirFozzie (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(21) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: In my opinion and many others', the worst problem to plague 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? (Heimstern)
 * A: There is no one magic bullet to nationalist/ethnic wars. If there was, we'd have solved them by now. I think there needs to be a dual effort by both the Arbitration Committee and the community to try to work on the environment in these areas.


 * These areas need administrators willing to get stuck in and do the hard work that needs to be done to keep tensions from boiling over, and the support of the community to assist these administrators, because invariably, those administrators will be dragged in, chewed up, and spit out. They will be harassed, targeted, accused of bias (whether or not it truly exists), and in some cases threatened.


 * I wrote about this two years ago. User:SirFozzie/Nationalism. I stand by that. We need to recognize the difference between those editors who hold a strong point of view in an article area but yet is able to write neutrally and factually, and editors who seek to tilt a series of articles toward their point of view, and quickly become yet another editor arguing the same things in the same way against the same opponents. The first are a treasure to be cherished, the second a burden that become a burden to discussion and consensus.

(22) Civility: How and when to enforce civility restrictions remains controversial. How admins should enforce it is largely outside the scope of this election, so I ask you this: To what extent and how should ArbCom enforce civility? Is incivility grounds for desysopping? Banning? Are civility restrictions a good idea? To what extent is incivility mitigated by circumstances such as baiting or repeated content abuses (POV pushing, original research etc.) by others? (Heimstern)
 * A: Civility and incivility are problem areas. There are quite a few editors who frequently write the best content Wikipedia can offer, but yet cannot discuss certain topics or with certain people civilly. It's a frequent balancing act between the two. I tend to take a nuanced view toward civility restrictions.. there are some (few) times where it can be useful.. but quite frankly, isn't every editor here at Wikipedia under the civility restriction, in that we are expected to work civilly with other editors and attempt to reach consensus rather then to treat Wikipedia as a battleground?

(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? (Offliner)
 * A: I've made some suggestions above as to how to streamline the ArbCom's efficinecy, and make sure items do not slip through the cracks, as apparently happened a couple times during the past twelve months. Smaller, focused groups may also help when it comes to writing and voting on a proposed decision.

(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? (Majorly)
 * A: In general, I think that the community should have the first go at any dispute before ArbCom even thinks about the situation. There ARE exceptions, for example, wheel wars between administrators for example. But in general, if there's been no dispute resolution (formal, or informal).. I will vote to decline the case 99 times of 100.

(25) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's decision to set up Advisory Council on Project Development earlier this summer? If you were one of the founding members of the advisory council, please explain why you accepted the invitation to join the committee. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: I think it was a good idea (trying to find areas where Wikipedia could be improved), but I think by cloaking it in the mantle of the Arbitration Committee, that people thought it was like if the Supreme Court (the Judicial side of EN-WP) had decided that it had the ability to appoint members of Congress (the Legislative side). As I said, ArbCom needs to be leading the discussion in areas that are muddled, problematic or contradictory. However, when they lead the discussion, that big Arbitrator hat (kinda like the Pope's hat, but smaller and less pointy) needs to be taken off and put aside. Their views is theirs and should not be taken as ArbCom fiat.

(26) As of May 2009, only 5 of the 16 Arbitrators had made more than 500 edits to the mainspace in the past calendar year. Several arbitrators' past 500 edits stretched back over 12 months. Considering this, do you feel that the Arbitration Committee is qualified to judge conduct disputes that overlap heavily with content disputes? Please elaborate. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: Considering how much work goes on behind the scenes, and how much WORK being an Arbitrator entails, I can understand how that it may seem that arbitrators are basically disconnected from the rest of Wikipedia. However, becoming a Wikipedia administrator can sometimes feel like a second part-time job rather then a volunteer effort, and becoming an Arbitrator means that you have a near full-time job, along with Real Life concerns. I'm HOPING that as we look to continue to streamline issues, we can free up Arbitrators to take time off from taking cases, and for them to be able to edit just like any other editor without having to worry about the latest drama to pop up.

(section answered by SirFozzie at SirFozzie (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC))

Specific past examples of ArbCom's decision-making
(27) Do you agree with the committee's decision to reban the_undertow/Law (see motion here)? Would you have handled the situation differently? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: In general, I agree with the decision. The undertow was sanctioned by ArbCom. He had an appeal to ArbCom which unfortunately slipped through the cracks, but then he decided to create a new account, which while assorted administrators and even an arbitrator knew it was him, the general community did not. When the breach of his sanctions became generally known, the ban was re-applied. While Undertow is not completely to blame here, the correct thing to do when his request slipped through is not to assume he had the ok to start up again, but to understand until told otherwise, his ArbCom ban was still in force.

(28) Why do you think the committee chose to desysop Jennavecia but not Jayron32 (the motion to desysop Jennavecia was passing with all arbitrators having voted when Jennavecia resigned, the motion to desysop Jayron32 had been and was rejected; see the previous link)? How would you have voted? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: The situation with Jennavecia was two-fold. A) Jennavecia did not think she had done anything wrong by supporting her friend after his appeal had slipped through the cracks. If she had said "Well, I don't think I had done anything wrong here, but I will not do it again", I think the motion to severely admonish her would have passed instead of the desysop. However, her second issue was comments that said (essentially) "Not only do I think I did nothing wrong here, I'd do the exact same thing again now, knowing what I know". That was the straw that broke the camel's back, basically.
 * Actually, I did say that I would do it differently. Thank you, though, for misrepresenting me. Lara  ☁ 06:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(29) Iridescent and MZMcBride have both publicly admitted that they knew that Law was the_undertow at the time of Law's RfA. While MZMcBride did not vote in Law's RfA, Iridescent did. Noting that Iridescent is currently a user who has the ability to request the admin bit back at WP:BN at any time and that MZMcBride is currently a sysop, what do you think, if anything, should the Arbitration Committee have done? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: The ArbCom hadn't seen such a situation previously.. neither really had the community. Basically it was a situation that no one had seen before, so no one had rules in place to deal with what was generally a hypothetical situation. I would not be in favor of ex post facto removals of administrators access, but as I said above, I would be willing to be harsher to the next time this happened, as people now know the settled case findings on this type of situation.

(30) Out of all the cases handled by the Arbitration Committee in 2009, which one(s) do you think the committee as a whole handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choice(s). (Camaron)
 * A: My thoughts. Fringe Science was the least successful. ArbCom is there to resolve the dispute and to do what is necessary to return as much as possible to a harmonious editing environment. Within one week of the case closing, there had been multiple Enforcement requests. Some of it was that they had decided to encourage a "go forth and sin no more" nature where things could possibly have been handled better with more restrictions and or removing editors from the area, and the other side of it was unclear remedies, where the two sides continued to argue about what the ruling really meant. The most successful? I'd say the Scientology ArbCom case. No matter what decision was made, the results of this would be frighteningly public, and they nailed it. They both found the core problems in this area and crafted principles, findings and remedies that went to the core of the situation and fixed it. There's a reason why you don't see any Scientology related cases at AE, compared to other ArbCom cases. They made the tough decisions, and they got it right.

(31) For the purpose of the following five questions, please assume the principles in question are directly relevant to the facts of the case that you are deciding as an arbitrator. Would you support or oppose these principles as written should they be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? (To keep the amount of time required to respond to these examples to an absolute minimum, I personally would consider one or two sentences to be ample reasoning for the "why" part of this question; that kind of statement length is akin to many of the Arbitrator votes on the proposed decision pages of a case.) (Daniel)
 * (As a point of further clarification, it is entirely unnecessary to read the case these principles were originally decided in — the intent of these questions are to establish your opinion on the general principles that are linked to, while working under the assumption they are directly relevant to a case you are deciding.)

(i) "Private correspondence", July 2007
 * A:Generally, agreed. The core question of what rights a recipient of an email has is unsettled, copyright wise. It's generally believed that one can quote selected portions of the email (the "fair use" defense), but depending on the rights or permissions granted by the sender, fully copying the email or forwarding the email verbatim may violate Copyrights.

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007
 * A:Agreed that if one cannot justify publicly their actions, then one should not do it, or BEFORE THEY DO IT, at the very least make ArbCom or the Foundation aware of the reasons that they cannot justify their actions publicly, and waiting for their consent or comment.

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008
 * A: Generally agree with the finding. Saying "That is Libel" or "That is Defamatory" is never going to be met well, and even perceived, unclear threats of legality can have a chilling effect. There are other ways to say it that get it through, without the possibility of causing the problem by using those specific terms.

(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008
 * A:While I'm not sure I agree with it 100% (it seems to me like one could abuse the privileged nature of mediation, and then claim that the other person can't call them on it, in later dispute resolution attempts).. I understand and agree with the general principle, that to be able to fully explore issues in mediation, all must be free to speak freely and honestly.

(v) "Outing", June 2009
 * A:I agree with this principle. If one has voluntarily given out information about themselves previously, you cannot then make an issue about about other people using this information. Please note, I make the difference between voluntarily disclosed information "My name is Joe Shlobotnik" (where you cannot then complain if someone then calls you Joe) to involuntarily disclosed information. (Someone posts: "User:Shlobo is Joe Shlobotnik"..) There is no stuffing the genie back into the self-disclosure bottle.

(32) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's recent decision to appoint MBisanz as a fourth community member – or rather, alternate member with full access and possible voting rights – to the Audit Subcommittee after an election which was to elect three members to the subcommittee? (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: I understand the decision of the Committee to make a motion before hand, that should someone barely not qualify for one of the three positions that were announced to be available, that an alternate position would be offered to the candidate. I even agree, there's at least a fair chance that at least one of the three elected members will not be able to complete their term, and it's good to plan for that kind of eventuality. However, I do think the Committee made a misstep by not publicizing this motion beforehand. While it's not unusual to happen in elections (I remember last year's ArbCom election where at first it was believed that six or seven arbitrators would be named, and 10 ended up being named), I do understand that the community desires that there's no feeling that ArbCom is "making things up as they go along".

Full answers SirFozzie (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Other issues
(33) Originally RfARs were named in the style of "Party X v. Party Y", in line with the idea of two groups in opposition to each other (eg. User:Guanaco versus User:Lir). Later it was changed to naming an individual user (eg. Husnock). Now cases get random names like Highways 2. What naming convention do you believe is the appropriate one for ArbCom to use in designating case names? Under what circumstances should a case name be changed after opening, such as in ? (MBisanz)
 * A: My thoughts are that the case title should accurately reflect the dispute. If it's involved in a subject area (Troubles, for example). If it's user conduct, it should reflect the user in question (Lapsed Pacifist for example). If it's a an area of editors, then that should do. (Eastern European Mailing List). From the title, one should get a general idea of the focus of the ArbCom case.

(34) Do you feel that the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach is correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: I'm a proponent of doing whatever we can to minimize the damage that vandalism and malicious information can do in BLP articles. Be that Flagged Revisions, Lar's Liberal Semi-Protection policy, etcetera. We're slowly getting there, but there's too many sneaking under-the-radar article vandalism incidents to say we're there yet.

(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? (Hipocrite)
 * A:This is my only account. I have made a few isolated IP edits, but never long term and never frequently.

(36) One issue on which arbitrators (and others participating in cases) frequently disagree is how "strict" versus "lenient" the committee should be toward users who misbehave and need to be sanctioned. Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, as a general matter in the types of cases that tend to lead to split votes among the arbitrators, do you think you would side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or those who vote for a greater number of bans and desysoppings? Generally, in a given case what factors might lead you to vote for (a) a less severe sanction, or for (b) a long-term ban or a desysopping? (Newyorkbrad)
 * A: I'm of the mind that "Quick to apply", "Quick to Lift" is the best way to handle things at the Arb level. I'd be willing to see something like a one year ban be commuted after six months IF the person involved agrees to stay out of trouble. Of course, further misbehavior should see the ban quickly reinstated). As for the less severe/long term issue.. A) if the person can show that it was an isolated misjudgement, and/or they show a willingness to correct their judgement in the future, I'd be more willing to go for a more lenient sanction. Anyone can make mistakes. Repeated, willful misjudgements (IE, not learning from previous issues, and repeating behavior that one should know is wrong), would put me toward long-term bans and/or de-adminning.

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

Questions from Kirill Lokshin

 * 1) Is the purpose of arbitration to resolve disputes, or to uphold policies and community norms?  To what extent can, or should, the Committee ignore policy if doing so allows a more effective resolution to a particular dispute?
 * 2) How should the desire to be fair to every individual involved in arbitration be balanced with the need to expediently resolve disputes?
 * 3) When presented with groups holding two competing visions of what Wikipedia ought to be, should the Committee strive to maintain a balance of power between the two sides, or espouse one in preference to the other?
 * 4) Should every infraction discovered in the course of an arbitration proceeding be sanctioned?  Why or why not?
 * 5) Why did arbitration decisions shift from individual, targeted sanctions, to general sanctions, and finally to discretionary sanctions?  How did this trend change the editing environment in affected areas, and to what extent have those changes benefitted the project?
 * 6) Are admonishments, reminders, and warnings effective as arbitration remedies?  Why or why not?
 * 7) Is the shift away from informal decision-making and consensus and towards formal procedures and rules of order in the Committee's day-to-day business desireable?  Why or why not?
 * 8) To what extent should individual arbitrators bear collective responsibility for the actions of the Committee as a whole?  Is it acceptable for an arbitrator to undermine a decision he or she disagrees with?
 * 9) Arbitration has been described as mixing the characteristics of adversarial and inquisitorial systems.  To what extent is this correct?  To what extent is this desireable?
 * 10) Over the past several years, a number of cases (notably C68-FM-SV, Date delinking, and Scientology) have taken an extremely long time to resolve.  What are the primary causes of this, and how can they be addressed?
 * 11) Are the main systemic problems with arbitration a result of the Committee's failings, or consequences of the environment in which the Committee functions?

Good luck! Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) A bit of both actually. ArbCom's mandate is to enforce the site's policies to solve disputes. I'm hesitant to say that ArbCom can go off the board, so to speak, and IAR its way into ignoring policy in the name of expediency. There's a couple times when ArbCom or its individual members stepped out, and each time, there was massive amounts of drama.
 * 2) Wikipedia should do what it can to make sure that it is FAIR to its users, (we won't ever 100% succeed but we can try), but we should also be expedient in resolving disputes.
 * 3) Neither. ArbCom needs to be "platform agnostic", and rule on the merits (IE, who violated Wikipedia's policies and norms), not on "balancing the power" or things like that.
 * 4) I would say that not every infraction needs to be even mentioned at ArbCom, however, if they lead to showing a pattern of behavior that needs to be noted, then it should be mentioned.
 * 5) ArbCom tries out new remedies in response to problem areas that previous types of sanctions have handled less then optimally (for example, the probationary terms in the Troubles, when it was handled in 2007, compared to the newer type of restrictions in the 2nd Macedonia ArbCom case).
 * 6) I think they are useful. They show a pattern of less then stellar behavior, and serve as a reminder to improve behavior as needed. Not every infraction deserves a block/ban/de-sysop, but we shouldn't allow anyone to continue disruption by hiding behind the fig leaf of "ArbCom ok'd it, they would have sanctioned me if there was any problems"
 * 7) I think some formality is to be desired and expected, (again, an issue with the size of Wikipedia, plus the sheer amount of work that to needs to be done), but I think we must not become overly bureaucratic, "To file a case with ArbCom, you must fill out Form 44-A, "Request to Engage Arbitration Committee on Dispute in triplicate in red ink only."
 * 8) I think there's a difference between each Arbitrator's view and the view of "The Arbitration Committee". I have no problem with an arbitrator who has a dissenting opinion (posted publicly, for example, opposing remedies, even if they pass). I do have a problem with an arbitrator actively undermining a decision. There is a difference.
 * 9) I like to mix the two, to varying degrees. ArbCom cases are necessarily adversarial, due to the nature of its remit. In the cases I've seen before the ArbCom, there are a couple times I would have liked to see ArbCom suggesting areas they would like to see evidence on to prevent arguing over unneeded or unnecessary information. Members of ArbCom asking questions or seeking guidance would be useful in such cases.
 * 10) Each ArbCom case is different. Some cases, like Scientology are long, because they are necessarily complicated and engaging different areas of dispute. Some cases are more difficult because they have pulled in neighboring disputes. (C68/FM/SV). Some cases have problems due to lack of atttention from ArbCom (one case went two months before a note from ArbCom stated that due to holidays and the like, they were just beginning to look at information at that time). The last is a problem. The others, not as much. ArbCom must get it right.
 * 11) I don't think the systemic problems we saw from past Committees is as endemic with the current Committee. Some of it hangs in policy and some of it is personal (retirements, breaks, and going inactive.)

Thanks for your questions. SirFozzie (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from John Carter
These questions are being asked of all candidates.
 * In limited conversation with past and present arbitrators, they have regularly mentioned the pronounced time demands which being a member of the Arbitration Committee can require, particularly in the difficult or complex cases, on such matters as reading evidence, reviewing behavior of individuals, and discussion of solutions. Do you believe that you will be able to give such matters the time they require?
 * Also, as has been mentioned above, several editors have indicated some arbitrators become less active as regular contributors, either because of the "politics" or because of the demands on time. Do you anticipate being able to continue to function as an active content contributor while an arbitrator?
 * Also, do you anticipate that your exposure to the seamier side of wikipedia might make you less interested in continuing as a content contributor on the conclusion of your ArbCom term?
 * A. If I did not think I could give the amount of time needed to do the job, I wouldn't have run. For the second question, I am not a content contributor to the level of some of the other candidates, but I have done some things here and there. I do not see any reason that would change. For the final question, quite frankly, over the three and a half years that I've been here, I've seen just about every bit of the seamier side of Wikipedia that anyone can see. Whether it's the worst areas of dispute resolution that Wikipedia currently have, or various real-world consequences of actions on and off of Wikipedia, I've seen it all. So I don't think that I can be surprised any further. (Although I'm sure I will be). Thanks for your question! SirFozzie (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from User:mikeblas
Wikipedia has gone from being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but only successfully if they're aware of a morass of overlapping policies, recommendations, suggestions, procedures, committees, and teams". I think some of the questions you're being asked during your trek towards serving on the Arbitration Committee demonstrate the surprising complexity of the systems that are in place.

My questions surround your role in that bureaucracy, and your ability to make changes for the better. Thank you for entertaining them, and good luck with your candidacy. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) How do you manage to have the time to learn and study all of these policies, guidelines, procedures, committees, and navigate their politics? How do you think you, or anyone else, could possibly be effective in the complicated editing environment and intricate political landscape?
 * 2) As an Arbitrator, you will be managing multiple postings, doing check user checks, reviewing cases, analyzing evidence, overseeing oversight and checkuser permissions, moderating a busy mailing list, monitoring a few other mailing lists, working on policy- and procedure-related discussions. This is volunteer work. How much time per week can you spend on all the tasks an Arbitrator must execute? What is your motivation?
 * 3) It's clear that Wikipedia has the goal of recording and redistributing knowledge. But some of its own policies prevent it from reaching that goal, and it very frequently ends up redistributing information that isn't correct, reflects bias, or has never verified. How can you, as an Arbitration Committee member, help Wikipedia find its goal?
 * 4) What do you think of the questions you're been asked here? For example, how do you think your opinion of the previous handling of an RfA involving a sock puppet tells us that you'll be any more effective at rectifying Wikipedia's multitude of problems than any other candidate?
 * 5) Do you think the Arbitration Committee's procedures are understandable and approachable by most editors? Do you think conflict resolution on Wikipedia, in general, is understood by most editors, and that it enables productive work on the improving the quality and correctness of content presented here? If so, what will you do to correct it?


 * A: I think the only rule one needs to be intimately familiar with when one starts to edit in this environment is the Golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The rest is just variations on it.
 * A: As I've said previously, no one can really tell how much time one will need to spend on Arbitration Committee matters. What is true for one person at one time may not be true for other people at different times. There was a period last year when there was 8 or more arbitration cases running simultaneous, with a good percentage of the Arbitration Committee inactive. That meant there was a large amount of work that needed to be done and a low amount of people to do it. There was a period this year when there was only 1 or 2 active cases and no one was inactive. That meant there was not much work and a high amount of people available. So it can depend. My motivation? I believe that the core ideal of Wikipedia, to provide knowledge, is laudable and deserves to be supported. I have also critiqued the Committee when I thought they had mishandled issues or made a mistake. I truly believe that one should not just sit idly by on the sideline and say "You're not doing it right" to the people doing the job. That's called Monday Morning Quarterbacking. I think I can do the job and it needs to be done. What else does there need to be?
 * A: There's no deadline to Wikipedia. Wikipedia will never be finalized. What the ArbCom is designed to do is let the community do its job. ArbCom's job is to assist the community in dispute resolution so we can always strive for the most accurate encyclopedia possible.
 * A: Generally, I think people ask questions in areas where they have had interest in (For example, if you had to deal with a persistent banned user, you'd be interested to see what Wikipedia is doing to help in that area. If you have had issues with an article having inaccurate or malicious information in it, you'd probably want to know how Wikipedia is looking to resolve that situation. And having experience in any area will assist you in dealing with future issues in that area. For example, techniques developed during the whole Mantanmoreland case have been refined and used to help identify other sockpuppets.
 * A:I thought that a "Beginner's guide to arbcom" would always be useful. I managed to figure it out during my early history (two months after I was granted the mop at RfA, I was at the OTHER RfA (RfArb, more accurately), bringing one of the largest omnibus cases in ArbCom's history: The Troubles. But I do think that there are things that can always be improved.

Thanks for your questions! SirFozzie (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Bfigura
Thank you for running, and best of luck with your candidacy. In your statement, you mention that ArbCom "can highlight areas where Wikipedia's policies are unclear, contradictory or can be improved." This leads me to ask two questions. -- B figura (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think are the main areas where policy is unclear/contradictory?
 * How could policy in these areas be improved?


 * BLP (the Default-to-delete on BLP AfD's) is currently in flux, as is WP:CLEANSTART (the terms in which a user can drop their account and start a new one), is two that I've seen recently.. I'm sure there are other areas where there are a lot of ill will or at the least, people that believe strongly in differing views, this is just two off the top of my head. I was thinking about one to three members of ArbCom mediating a non-binding RFC in the area, to see if we can find common ground, as a start. Maybe offer options where the policy can be improved (but they have no special powers to enshrine THEIR particular ideas in policy over any other editor).

Thanks for your question! SirFozzie (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754
Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2008, 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. Please note that if you are not an administrator, have not been here for a substantial length of time, or have a statement that is not written seriously, this will drastically affect your score.

The first 10 questions are short answer questions. The next question determines your ability to go through evidence. The last question is a bit open-ended.


 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
 * 2) Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) There have been editors in the past who have opposed administrators solely for being administrators. To be more specific, a) they oppose on nearly all RFAs, and b) when an administrator's conduct is criticized on ANI, they instantly attack them regardless of the situation. What are your views on this sort of thing?
 * 5) An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (Specifically, they not understand English and do not realize that they are messing up things like table syntax, wiki syntax, headings, are adding unsourced things, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
 * 6) Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?
 * 7) Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.
 * 8) When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?
 * 9) A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?
 * 10) During the course of 2009, User:Casliber, User:FT2, User:Kirill Lokshin, and User:Sam Blacketer left the Arbitration Committee. a) Pick one of these editors and explain why they left the Arbitration Committee. b) When the story was made public, do you believe that the editor you chose handled this situation properly in stepping down? Were they forthcoming enough with information?
 * 11) Tell me as much as you can about User:OrangeCounty39. You may refer to any page on the Internet except for other ArbCom candidates' replies to this question.
 * 12) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) 125 days is too long for just about any arbcom case. The case had long since passed the point of usefulness to get to the core of the issue, any issue. By the end of it, there's no chance for any meaningful evidence, or meaningful discussion.
 * 2) My thoughts are that while core projects can certainly have an active voice in articles under its remit, it is not the be-all and end-all of every discussion under it's aegis.
 * 3) The core part of your question is the first part. "Few to no productive edits". You also state that they have not necessarily broken policies, but I can think of several that anyone engaging in the activity you describe would be breaking.
 * 4) I've run into some of the editors you describe. A lot of it depends on how productive an editor they are. No one said that when you become an administrator, all the common rabble have to bow and scrape, and kiss your feet. In fact, one of the first things I would say to any prospective administrator, especially looking at ones who think they can help in a conduct area is.. "If you even POSSIBLY have a thin skin when it comes to people attacking you, both publicly and privately, and it can become horribly personal, don't do it. You'll drive yourself crazy" Again, you have to take their value to the encyclopedia.
 * 5) I would make every opportunity possible to try to get the editor to understand the issues with what he's doing (for example, if English is a second language for the editor, possibly finding an editor who can speak their primary language so the point can get through). But if that doesn't work, then sadly, regrettably, the account will probably have to be blocked.
 * 6) There's no magic formula to determine if a user deserves a community ban, to be quite honest. But the key word, I think is COMMUNITY ban. They have to exhaust the patience of the community.
 * 7) The 3RR rule is a hard/bright line. More then 3 Reverts in a 24 hour period should equal instant block. But you can be blocked for reverting 3 or less times, if it's determined you're editing disruptively and/or edit warring. Basically, it's like a tachometer on an engine, You go beyond that redline, and your engine's going to blow up (ie, you'll be blocked). But staying just under the red line constantly is no guarantee of safety either (Gaming the system to stay under the limits)
 * 8) Hard and fast rules with usernames don't quite always work. For example, the recent issue where an administrator thought Nipples was a bad username, because, well, they're the naughty bits, and was quite surprised that consensus did not back him up on that. Generally, If the name is odd but harmless, like Nipples, I see no problem with it. If it is unnecessarily vulgar or disparaging, that's when I would ask them to change their user name.
 * 9) Generally, I classify banned users under two categories. The garden variety one, where policy states that their edits can be rolled back by anyone, and if the edits are good, reinstated (by another user who then takes responsibility for the content). And then there's the OTHER side of banned users, ones who are "Remarkably Unwelcome", to use a turn of phrase made popular by someone. Those editors.. the sooner they get the idea that their edits, good, bad, or indifferent will be removed without delay and leave the encyclopedia alone, the better off we are. I generally fall to the harsher side where if a user is banned, the community has stated that they do not want the edits, and should be removed, but I can see the view on that, and I would not impose my opinion on others. The second category, remove on sight. No exceptions.
 * 10) I'll take Casliber as an example here. He knew that a user under a long term ArbCom sanction had returned, and in the guise of the new account, had become a Wikipedia administrator. He had attempted to convince the user to retire the account, quietly serve out the remainder of his sanction and then make a return. However, he did not say anything publicly or to the other members of ArbCom. Later, when the link between the two accounts was made public, he decided that his lack of judgement with regards to this issue had compromised his ability to be a fair arbitrator, that he was not sure he had the support of the community as a whole, and decided to resign his position on the committee. He made the right decision, for him in that situation, but I think he still had my support. He had tried to resolve the issue, and was unsuccessful. SirFozzie (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) OrangeCounty39 was an account operated by a user who had been banned from Wikipedia for, amongst other things, persistently adding false information to articles about roads. Also, the user had made statements that could be considered credible death threats on Wikipedia, I think that he would fall under the "remarkably unwelcome" line above (as do you, as you ask all folks to discuss things with you before considering any unblock of this user). I'd have to be convinced that he's able to work within Wikipedia's policies, and be able to add correct, well-sourced, factual information, before I considered any unblock myself. (Striking answer, as question was struck through.) SirFozzie (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) I think that Wikipedia's size makes it difficult to make changes to its policies, even needed changes. It's like trying to push a RV. It's hard enough to change policies, but when you get a small, determined clique that does not want to see the policy change, it can become even more difficult. Again, it's like trying to push a RV.. only this time it's uphill, and the emergency brakes are on.

Thanks for your questions :) SirFozzie (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Vodello
Last year you were a candidate for the Arbitration Committee, gaining 154 Support votes but 103 Oppose votes. There were numreous claims of inciting drama, drama mongering, and "a desire to further engage in drama than work towards solving it."

Drama mongering almost completely imploded the Arbitration Committee last year. Given your track record and your numerous instances where you seemingly prolonged drama, is there any reason for Wikipedia editors to believe that you will be an objective arbitrator that will not do much more harm than good to this committee and the project as a whole?


 * A: Anyone who gets involved in dispute resolution here on Wikipedia will get accused of drama-mongering, even if they were trying to RESOLVE drama, not create drama. For example, for three years, I've worked to mediate and try to resolve the contentious area on Northern Ireland and Ireland (collegially and collectively known as "The Troubles"). Anyone who gets put into an impossible situation like that will be attacked incessantly.. you'll be lucky if you only annoy or anger half the people with any decision you make. I think it's necessary for an arbitrator to have experience in dispute resolution, because that is the Committee's job. But it is a necessary job.


 * I invite you, and anyone else reading this, to scrutinize my edits. For example, within the past 48 hours, I requested that a discussion that could result in the indefinite block or ban of a user be done strictly according to Wikipedia's policies and by the book, to avoid a situation where it looks like there was a rush to judgement or a settling of scores. Also, when there was a situation where a user was enraged by a series of questionable oversights, I urged all parties to step back for a moment, and let the facts of the case be known, and not let the heat of emotion decide the situation.

Thank you for the question: SirFozzie (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Sandstein
Hi, I have a question related to arbitration enforcement. Recently, another administrator undid one of my arbitration enforcement blocks without discussion, which ArbCom prohibited in 2008. Because a reblock by me would have been wheel-warring, I requested arbitral intervention at. While the Committee appeared to agree that the enforcement was correct and the unblock was wrong, they did not seem inclined to do anything about it for 15 days until the case became moot because the admin was desysopped for unrelated reasons. This has led me to cease AE activity, because I view this non-reaction as a sign that the current ArbCom is not very interested in having its decisions actually enforced. As an arbitrator, what would you have done or advised in this situation? Thanks,  Sandstein   06:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the Arbitration Committee did not handle this well. Law/Undertow's unblock of ChildofMidnight was not well founded in policy. Reversing another administrator's action NORMALLY without discussion or attempting to resolve the issue is never a good idea. To me, that's wheel-warring right there. That's bad enough right there.


 * However, there's an additional factor here. ArbCom has stated in a motion that specifically states that 1) Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.


 * This was left behind when the Law/Undertow link was found, and by the time the Committee had returned to this, it had really become moot. In this case, I would have A) Reinstated the block (or at least put a notation in ChildofMidnight's block log that the unblock by Law had been against policy and consensus), and B) Put in a motion to immediately sanction (either at least an admonishment, a ban from working on AE and its actions, or an immediate de-sysop) Law for his actions. Thanks for the question. This is an area I'm familiar with, having gone through much the same issues as you. SirFozzie (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Lar
Note to readers: This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2009/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and modified to fit changes in circumstance.

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. For those of you that ran last year, feel free to cut and paste last year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded.


 * 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.
 * c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
 * d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - the trial we maybe(?) are about to get
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied
 * 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.
 * 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? Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
 * 2) 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? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?
 * 3) 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 from last year 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 from last year)
 * 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?
 * f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
 * 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?
 * 2) 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? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * 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)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 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?
 * 2) 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? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * 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)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 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? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * 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)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 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)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Opt Out is not going to truly be fair... if known, the person's view should at least carry some weight, but you're relying on the person to know about their article on WP. I wouldn't consider a lack of an Opt-Out from someone to be a positive. Default to Delete on BLP is something I generally agree with, personally, but not something I'd be willing to mandate from the ArbCom pulpit, as the policy in that section is currently in flux. I am a proponent of Liberal Semi-Protection. In general, it's a case where we at Wikipedia has already been found wanting (in that a significant piece of vandalism has survived for a period of time, un-noticed by all and sundry.. EXCEPT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO VIEW THE ARTICLE (our audience). D and E are going to be interesting when and if they finally go ahead with them. I'm generally in favor of them, with E) being something that I'd like to see at some point soon.
 * 2) It's a question of policy. The BLP policy. As to the BLP question I agree with what ArbCom has come up with, but ArbCom should not be mandating policy. So I like what they did, I dislike how they did it. In general, I like trying a variety of tactics. There is no general "Magic Bullet" policy where if we enact it, everything will be sunshine and roses, and to expect it would be, is wishful thinking.
 * 3) Getting consensus is very hard on Wikipedia. It's just a general fact of life that what you're getting even when you get consensus is not the true consensus of the however many registered users and countless anonymous IP editors, but the folks who know about the discussion (wherever it is), and feel strongly enough to comment. But I don't like straight up/down votes either, I much prefer a discussion and trying to seek consensus over a "Yes or No only" type situation. SirFozzie (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) See the above statement. I can think of several major changes to Wikipedia's rules and policies that I would think would be useful, however, a consensus type situation means that a small, determined band of editors can "punch above their weight" and slow down or even stop changes. I categorized the differing views as "Wiki vs Pedia", ie those who believe strongly in the Wiki-ideal (anyone can edit), and the Pedia part (building the best possible encyclopedia).
 * 5) I support the POLICY of Pseudonymity with some exceptions. Hypocritical users can hide their conflict of interest with articles or areas of articles, while we punish those who are honest and forthright about their COI. There is no way we could change it even if we wanted to at this late point. However, if you DO deceive the encyclopedia and get caught, on your own head be it. See my answer elsewhere, but if you voluntarily self-disclose information, you cannot then "un-disclose" it.. there's no stuffing that genie back in the bottle. I'd prefer that the  outing information NOT be used, but there always exceptions... If information reveals that someone is breaking Wikipedia rules (for example, the one at the beginning of the answer, where disclosure of that user's real name revealed a conflict of interest they had about a whole series of articles they were not-so-subtly pushing a particular point of view on). You may have heard of it *deadpan*. As to MY information, thanks to outside webpages, my real life information is readily available. I have never denied that I am the person they listed. I think that Arbitrators must be ready to face the fact that their personal information will likely be dug up and posted publicly, even against their wishes due to the simple fact that they are in a position of power on one of the Top 10 English language websites in the world. I think that Risker's article about privacy On privacy, confidentiality and discretion does a good job at putting it out there (and Risker's real life experience this year bears that out). I think more people should read that.In general,involuntarily outing another user (on or off-Wikipedia) should be met with a harsh response (immediate block, and the oversighters engaged). There are somelimited exceptions. In general, such activities should be done privately, to the ArbCom mailing list, or what have you, and there'd better be a good POLICY-based reason for their outing. (IE, proving they have a previously undisclosed conflict of interest with articles). As for the difference between off and on-wiki actions, My thoughts are that if an action is meant to affect ON-Wiki, it should be treated as such.
 * 6) I do think that the Foundation should be more proactive in warning folks about the consequences of editing and identification on WP. Risker's essay above should be required. One of the steps I would encourage the Foundation to take is to serve those using WP to stalk editors a cease and desist notice. For editors with real life identity problems, I would see no problem with allowing a variation of a WP:CLEANSTART, but I'd make sure they know that editing in the same areas and in the same way may allow others to "connect the dots", so to speak, and to link the two accounts. My definition of Stalking is the use of Wikipedia to harass others. To the point where a stalker would deliberately post on pages they knew the victim would read, in an attempt to provoke fear. That is a problem. Reviewing a user's contributions for other problematic edits is nothing of the sort. There's a difference. Stalking IS a serious accusation, and I would hope that anyone who is making such statements has the information to back them up. I do not currently know of any users who I believe are over-playing the stalker card.. but I'm sure that there are.
 * 7) Certain banned users, such as the "remarkably unwelcome" editor mentioned in this question, should be treated like I mentioned above on question 6. The sooner they get the message that their edits (good, bad, indifferent) is not going to stand, and that they depart the encyclopedia, the better off we are. We don't ban users such as the "remarkably unwelcome" one above and then say "Ok, some of your edits are ok, so we'll let them stand". That just encourages them to continue to push the boundaries and annoy others.
 * 8) If there wasn't a Wikipedia Review, we would have to create a Wikipedia Review. There should be a place for people to go to vent off steam in such a way, or to criticise the things on Wikipedia that they think need to be changed. You do need to take a lot of things said with a grain of salt (in some cases, a grain of salt the size of a boulder is necessary), but there's no harm in listening to others. I'm sure there are many current and former members of WR who are upset that their "Wikipedia Haters club" has been despoiled, but I generally think its useful.
 * 9) The term is a red herring. Vested Contributors mean a lot of different things to people. I think we need to treat editors equally, and try to minimize the disruption to the encyclopedia.
 * 10) The color grey. Why? Because it's the color of the save page button, which means I'm through answering these questions :)

Thanks for your questions, Lar, and I'm sure the doctor who will be treating my carpal tunnel syndrome from answering these questions thanks you too! SirFozzie (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Avraham
Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer for what I know is a thankless, exhausting, nerve-wracking, emotionally draining, and real-life-affecting position here in EnWiki. For your courage alone, I salute you. I apologize if these questions replicate any above. If they do, please feel free to cut-and-paste your response here. Also, for any question with subquestions, please feel free to answer bthe subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion regarding the current state of administrator desysopping on EnWiki?
 * 2) Should there be more or less controls than are currently in place?
 * 3) Should the final say be in the hands of ArbCom, the community, or somewhere in between (stewards, crats)?
 * 4) How should an emergency desysop (coming from a CU check or other data source, for example, which is affecting a current RfX or XfD) be handled differently than a more "run-of-the-mill" desysop (from a protracted RfAR), or should it?
 * 5) What is your understanding of how the voluntary relinquishment of maintenance tools works with regards to their subsequent return upon request?
 * 6) What is your opinion about the current state of inter-editor behavior, especially with regard to "civility"?
 * 7) What does "civility" mean to you in the context of English Wikipedia?
 * 8) Do you believe that there has been a shift towards more or less "civility" between editors?
 * 9) Do you believe that there exists a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * 10) Do you believe that there should be a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * 11) Do you believe that there needs to be more or less enforcement of civility on English Wikipedia?
 * 12) If the answer to the above is "Yes", what do you see is ArbCom's role in this matter and how would you go about enhancing Wikipedia in this regard as an arbitrator?
 * 13) What is your opinion regarding Wikipedians "rights," or at least "expectations" to privacy and ano/psuedo-nymity, and what is ArbCom's role in either supporting or adjusting these expectations/rights?
 * 14) Lastly, please list one to three issues that you believe are of primary importance to the ongoing future of wikipedia and how you will contribute to the handling of those issues. Please feel free to copy/paste sections from your nominating statement if you have addressed it there.

My thoughts are that generally, the status of administrator desysopping on En.Wiki is good. Not EVERY de-sysop is clear cut and dried. There are some times where I think a de-sysop should have been done, and there are cases when a desysop was done that I wasn't 100% behind, but I can't think of any absolutely no-doubt screwups that ArbCom has made. As I said above, administrators must be allowed to make difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions (in some areas, if you enrage only HALF of the people in an area with a use of your administrator tools, you're lucky), so I do not support "One-size-fits-all" community de-adminning. I do support Request for Recall (and have put myself on it, despite the contentious areas I have worked in, through two unsuccessful requests). Emergency Desysops should never be permanent de-sysops.. until such time a formal motion and/or case can happen.

As for the voluntary relinquishment of tools (in good standing), and the reacquiring of them, I will say that I have used them myself. Over the last few months, a combination of personal health issues and family health issues required that my time was very limited on WP. So, I requested my tools be removed, as I felt that I could not do the duties of an administrator at that time. I am very glad to say that the health issues have been resolved satisfactorily, and I returned to WP a few months later. I do think that "inactive admins" should relinquish their tools, and then if there's no issues surrounding them when they become active again, be able to re-acquire the mop.

Civility is.. well, it's like the old judicial line about obscenity. "I know it when I see it". It can be the canary in the coal mine to indicate when people can no longer seek consensus with each other.. it becomes about each others conduct rather then the content. Usually, it's obvious when one or both sides are letting their civility slip... sometimes I think that ArbCom cases last that long because it shows, for the whole world to see who can and cannot deal with each other.. if you can't maintain a good public face while the magnifying glass of an ArbCom case (when you absolutely need to be on your best behavior), then what hope do we have that you can act appropriately without that light being shined on you..

I've answered most of those questions regarding psuedonymity and anonymity elsewhere.. but I think ArbCom's role is not to adjust those rights, but to enforce Wikipedia's policies.

My two areas are: Finding ways to improve Wikipedia's trust-worthiness and the factual information inside it. I'm harsher then most on editors whose first edits to Wikipedia are childish, immature vandalism (especially the sneaky kind, like changing one word to be a slur on them, and hiding it in an otherwise not so bad edit), I see that, and I wonder how we can ever trust that user to not get bored and do it again for kicks. Article Vandalism is bad enough when it's mere factual information, but when it's about PEOPLE.. especially living people, it can do immesurable harm. I would love to see ArbCom's members views on some of the things Lar and others have posted. ArbCom can't create this policy on their own.. but I think that we can lead the vanguard on it.

The other area is generally restoring trust and openness to Arbcom's proceedings. I've seen comments by some that indicate that their faith in this area has been damaged severely, almost irreparibly. For example, the recent issue where ArbCom decided that in case of a close Audit Subcommittee election, they would allow for the position of an alternate to be created, which did happen. There would have been much less of a problem had this motion been announced publicly.. when ArbCom announced it ex post facto, many users had the feeling that ArbCom was making up the rules as they went.. and their trust in ArbCom was damaged. I think any private motion that ArbCom passes privately should be posted publicly in a timely manner (with certain exceptions, for example, if private information would be divulged).

Thanks for your questions! SirFozzie (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus

 * 1) How important is it for an arbitrator to reply to emails from parties and to their messages on arbitrator's own talk page?
 * 2) How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?
 * 3) In both my experience, and that of some other editors I talked to, being "grilled" at arbitration for weeks (or months) is "one of the worst experience of one's life" - and it doesn't matter if one is found innocent or guilty afterwards. Do you think that something can be done to make the experience of parties be less stressful?
 * 4) Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?
 * 5) ArbCom commonly criticizes editors, publishing findings about their failings and remedies to correct them. While nobody disputes this is needed, do you think ArbCom should also try to clarify whether noted failings are exceptional, and accompany critical findings with positive reinforcement, such as here?

It is important that arbitrators be engaged, whether that is answering emails (sometimes, an answer is not possible, but the email/post should at least be acknowledged). I think that arbitrators posting on the talk page CAN be useful at times, but not always.

And I do understand how folks can believe that being in front of ArbCom can be intensely stressful. I've been there and done that. I've had some ups and downs with cases in front of ArbCom. Perhaps, streamlining the case and having all evidence posted publicly within 30-45 days, and then closing the evidence page would be an idea worth considering. I'm not necessarily advocating for the idea myself, but it's ideas like that we should be taking a look at to consider if it's useful.

With regards to the essay.. my thoughts are that it must be a careful weighing of the value that users bring versus the disruption that they bring, and considering the following.. "Would alternate restrictions remove the disruption and keep the value?" If the disruption outweighs the value, and alternate restrictions would not at least balance the scales, then it would be more needed to use full sanctions.

With regards to your added question, I can understand how positive reinforcement can help as well, but I think it should be for exceptional cases, and not just a rubber stamp "But we think he's a jolly good fellow" type platitudes.

Thanks for your questions! SirFozzie (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC) (Updated: SirFozzie (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

IRC Question from Hipocrite
Do you use any of the wikimedia related IRC channels? If you do, will you please permit any logs of your conversations to be posted, in full? Thanks.


 * I am an infrequent (haven't been there in a couple months, if I remember correctly) member of the Wikipedia-en-admins channel, and as for logs.. I theoretically have no problem with granting permission for my logs to be posted, but realistically, you would need every member of the channel to grant permission for it to be active, so I must say I don't think that idea's a starter.

Thank you for your question, however. SirFozzie (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from NE2
Have you read War and Peace?


 * No, I haven't. Which is strange, now that I think about it, because I'm a voracious reader. (One time at a bookstore, the cashier asked me if I was going to devour the books there, or wait till I got home :D) Although sometimes I think I'm WRITING something similar with some of my answers. I tend to not do brevity well ;) Thanks for your Q (and thanks for keeping it short) SirFozzie (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Smallbones
Jimbo made a policy statement about paid editing. What is your position on Jimbo's continuing (not past) role on policy making? Is paid editing against policy? (I like short answers; I hope you like short questions) Smallbones (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Jimbo's role going forward is something the community has to get a grip on, and decide the situation, rather then leave it nebulous. I do agree with policy prohibiting paid editing. The exchange of cash or other material for the advocacy of certain viewpoints on articles cannot be reconciled with Wikipedia's policies. And yes, I do like short questions, thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Short Brigade Harvester Boris

 * 1) Under what conditions would you consider recusing from a case?

I would recuse myself if I cannot fairly decide the merits of an issue, or there is the appearance that I could not fairly decide the merits of an issue. For an example, if there's a Troubles 2 case, and I'm on ArbCom, there is no doubt that my past efforts in that area would nearly mandate that if I participated, it would be as an administrator who's worked on the area, and thus I would recuse. Thanks for the question, Boris SirFozzie (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Vecrumba

 * 1) What specific tenets of conduct do you commit to observe to maintain objectivity and transparency and to deal with issues beyond surface appearances?
 * 2) How do you plan to bring fresh and ameliorating views to conflicts and to avoid viewing those conflicts as merely confirming your prior personal expectations and perspective? That is, to see editors as editors and not through the the labels placed on them? As they are related, please feel free to answer either separately or in tandem. Thank you.

My goal is to do my best to fully explain my votes on any proposed decision that is before arbcom, as well as to explain the tenets of any proposed decision I write at the time I post them.

I also know the danger of judging a book by its cover.. generally in an ArbCom case, ArbCom members who have a strong opinion about an editor (such as that would cause the pre-judging you fear), should recuse. I pledge to uphold that.

Thanks for your questions! SirFozzie (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)