Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Questions

General questions

 * 1) Skills/interests: Which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator? Your responses should indicate how your professional/educational background makes you suitable to the tasks.
 * 2) *(a) reviewing cases, carefully weighing up the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions;
 * 3) *(b) drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
 * 4) *(c) voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and motions for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
 * 5) *(d) considering appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or considering the Subcommittee's recommendations;
 * 6) *(e) overseeing the allocation and use of checkuser and oversight permissions, including the vetting and community consultation of candidates for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
 * 7) *(f) running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to CU if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
 * 8) *(g) carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators are generally also given OS privileges);
 * 9) *(h) drafting responses to inquiries and concerns forwarded to the Committee by editors;
 * 10) *(i) interacting with the community on public pages such as arbitration and other talk pages;
 * 11) *(j) performing internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming arbcom-l mailing list traffic.
 * A: I used to work for a UK regulatory authority in a regulatory capacity. Part of my job involved weighing up evidence of fraud and reviewing cases where the subjects of my regulation had possibly broken the law. The case files included complex tax documentation, personal/private information, statements from affected persons, and of course the obligatory legal documents. This information would then be sent to another person for a final decision, with my recommendation & information attached. This, in addition to my OTRS work (which involves weighing up confidential information and decisions) and my work as an administrator shows, I feel, that I have ample experience. All administrators, of course, have experience in (d) - but knowing the history of the users and being able to judge people accurately in question is extremely important, and my work at OTRS gives me the skill and experience to judge users based on their past contributions on and off wiki, including private and occasionally dangerous/problematic evidence.
 * Although I understand the theory of checkuser, ranges and so on - I've taken courses in network engineering and computer science - I do not know specifically how the checkuser tool operates, as I've never been a checkuser before! However, oversight requests are an area I'm strong in - I answer several requests per week from OTRS tickets asking for personal information to be redacted, often spanning several articles, editors and time periods. Drafting responses via email and on community pages is also something I'm excellent at, hence why, unlike most OTRS volunteers, I have access to the legal and donation queues as well as the regular 'info' queue. The legal queue especially requires an excellent level of English and a sound ability in constructing extremely accurate sentences, as the people emailing in are often extremely litigious. Finally, I think in addition to being a part of OTRS (which has its own internal mailing queue), let alone the hundreds of emails we answer, being the mailing list administrator for my branch of the Royal Navy, encompassing between 500 and 1,000 people worldwide, gives me a wealth of experience in co-ordinating internal email traffic!
 * 1) Stress: How will you be able to cope with the stress of being an arbitrator, potentially including on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass you by the public "outing" of personal information?
 * A: I've already been outed and dealt with off-wiki threats and abuse through my OTRS and admin work. Both WR and Encyclopeadia Dramatica have discovered my 'real identity', which hasn't led to too many ill effects. I have had people ring up my employer and try to glean information from them (to no avail, I might add). When dealing with 'internet threats', I know that the real winner is the person who keeps his cool - and when dealing with real life threats, I'm in the armed forces, so I've had the training to deal with that rationally and appropriately.
 * 1) Principles: Assume the four principles linked to below are directly relevant to the facts of a new case. Would you support or oppose each should it be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? A one- or two-sentence answer is sufficient for each. Please regard them ''in isolation rather than in the context of their original cases.
 * 2) *(a) "Private correspondence"
 * A: I would support this principle, as there are already methods to deal with private correspondence. It's important that correspondence intended to be private remains private, as making such information public is not only a breach of trust (and technically copyright), but also inflames often delicate situations.
 * 1) *(b) "Responsibility"
 * A: I would support this principle, although would be tempted to abstain seeing as I am on the OTRS team myself. Actions need to be justifiable in as open a fashion as possible - if it's not possible to justify it openly, then it needs to be brought before the committee.
 * 1) *(c) "Perceived legal threats"
 * A: This is an obvious support. I have plenty of experience with legal threats on- and off-wiki, and I'm of the firm belief that you should comment on content, not contributors.
 * 1) *(d) "Outing"
 * A: I'm a little less keen on this one - I'd like it to be a bit stronger - but would still support it. I'm less keen because any sort of outing can inflame a situation, but it's important to draw a line somewhere.
 * 1) Strict versus lenient: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?
 * A: Generally I think I'd fall on the slightly stricter side of things, but not by a great deal. I've noticed that ArbCom tends to err on the side of caution when banning users, which I think is fair: banning someone from the project is a big step and should not be taken lightly. Desysopping is less of a big deal as far as I'm concerned, however. Admins are those who have earned the trust of the community, and if they lose that trust, the sysop flag should be removed. I must say that I've seen generally more sanctions I see as too lenient, than too harsh. Factors that might influence me are of course too varied to post here, but would probably include things like user conduct throughout the process, possible disruption to the project given all possible outcomes, community opinion, and previous discussions both on and off ArbCom.
 * 1) ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "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". Please give reasons.
 * A: I broadly agree, but it may well be that in future ArbCom finds itself in the position of having to do so. Nevertheless, Arbcom should act on the underlying principles, wherever possible. At most, I can see ArbCom acting as a clarifier of existing policy. This is for one simple reason: the community should make the rules. Having an elite group deciding policy - however well-intentioned - is not a good idea. If there is a big problem with existing policy, it's up to the community to discuss that problem and decide on a solution.
 * 1) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, 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?
 * A: ArbCom can, and in some cases should, aid in content disputes, but only the most extreme ones, such as the Israel/Palestine conflict. I'm unconvinced as to if it helps in most situations, however, as having arbitrators decide on the content of an article is a dangerous path to go down, especially when the arbitrators aren't necessarily experts in the subject. ArbCom is, then, perhaps, the exception to the rule that we should 'comment on content, not on contributors'. As to whether or not the Committee should 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... It's a good idea, and one which I opine on in some of my other questions, but I think rather difficult to enact in practice.
 * 1) Success in handling cases: Nominate the cases from 2010 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * A: In the (albeit unsourced) words of Zhou Enlai, it's "too soon to say". ArbCom decisions have short term effects and long term effects, and it's important to measure both when discussing how effective one case has been. I'll take the infamous 'Scientology' case as an example of this: in the short term there was a lot of drama and a lot of press coverage, which as a rule are bad things - but in the long term, the ruling seems to have done the trick: the problem is no longer apparent.
 * If I had to choose some from 2010 - and I am not entirely comfortable in doing so - I'd define as 'successful' the ones that have had less ongoing drama, such as Alastair Haines 2, Race and intelligence, and possibly Gibraltar. This is simply because Arbitration cases are there, at least in part, to prevent further drama and defuse a tricky situation, and, again as a rule, the less a case is heard about after it's closed, the more effective the decision has been. 2010 has been a good year for ArbCom in general - but it's been a better year for the community in that less cases have had to be taken there.
 * 1) Proposals for change? What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
 * A: In all honesty, I think such changes should be discussed and put forward by more than just Arbitrators. I have no prior experience as an Arbitrator, so I'm not comfortable in making rash judgements about what needs to be improved just yet. I'd like to see the process made a little more accessible to average users, because even reading a decision is too difficult for most editors. If I did decide to carry any idea through, I'd find myself seeking the support of the longer-serving Arbs and to a lesser extent the interested community to do so. It'd be silly to exclude the wide range of skills and experience that the community has when changing something that affects the entire project.

Individual questions
This section is for individual questions asked to this specific candidate. Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below. The question should:
 * be clearly worded and brief, with a limit of 75 words in display mode;
 * be specific to this candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages);
 * not duplicate other questions (editors are encouraged to discuss the merging of similar questions);

Election coordinators will either remove questions that are inconsistent with the guidelines or will contact the editor to ask for an amendment. Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time.

Please add the question under the line below using the following format:
 * 1) Question:
 * A:


 * 1) Question from User:Tijfo098: You were mentioned in the article: Wikipedia Struggles with Holocaust Disinformation; Ravensfire Deletes Jewish Content Can you clarify your involvement in that issue? 13:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: It would be very hard to clarify my involvement to the point where it answered your question fully. Unfortunately I'm bound by the OTRS team's privacy rules. Sufficed to say that I was handling a ticket (OTRS-speak for a set of interrelated emails and phone calls) which involved liaising with two opposing parties. The ticket was resolved amicably, with the parties going back to editing Wikipedia relatively normally. It's quite frustrating that I can't disclose the details of this case, as it involved a lot of mediation work. These news articles started popping up at the climax of the email discussions, and my employer was contacted by people who, let's say, 'did not have my best interests at heart'. If you have any pressing concerns about my involvement, please get in touch with me and I may be able to go into more detail, but I'm afraid I can't be much more specific without disclosing the content of private emails.
 * 1) Question from Jehochman Talk: Could you explain why your original account is indef blocked and what should be done, in general, by bureaucrats to prevent this from happening?  You seem to be the second candidate who's had this same problem.
 * A: It appears that my old username was registered by Grawp, and the account he created was thus blocked after one edit (this one). I don't think in all honesty that anything can be done about this without changes that would be too restrictive to the project. Grawp registered 'HawkerTyphoon' just like he could register any other unregistered username, and no harm was done beyond that one item of vandalism, which he would have committed with any other account. The most we could do is leave a note on the old username's page to say "This account was previously owned by X", but that brings its own problems.
 * 1) Question from Aiken drum: Your disclosure says: "To the best of my knowledge I have not edited under any other accounts." What does this mean, exactly, "[t]o the best of my knowledge"? Either you would know or you didn't. I'm not seeing how there's a middle ground there. AD 22:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: I could not, when I made that statement, remember ever editing under any other accounts other than the two I've mentioned. Your question has prompted me to do some searching of similar usernames, and as a result I'd like to also declare the doppelgänger account . I didn't declare it earlier because I simply didn't know it existed - I'd forgotten about it. I certainly no longer have the password to it, and as you can see, it has only two edits. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from Barts1a: If you are elected to a position on the Arbitration Committee; How would you change the process to eliminate the clear lack of candidates this year?
 * A: That's a very good question. I'm not really sure that ArbCom needs to have 18 members, if I'm completely honest. I'm quite certain we could cope with half that number by passing some of the problems down to a community discussion board, such as ANI (or suitable equivalent). ArbCom has problems with the workload it currently has, and problems with so few people wanting to be part of it. The answer is not to increase the number of Arbs, but to decrease the workload. If it were up to me as an Arb, I think I'd be unable to see the forest through the trees ('too close to the action'), and as a result I'd be consulting the community on possible answers to the problem. There are editors here who have no doubt come across a problem like this before, and would have valuable insight on how to solve it.
 * 1) Question from User:Iridescent: AFAIK you're currently still serving in the military; while obviously some things can't be predicted, are you aware of any commitments that will make you absent from Wikipedia for significant chunks of the next couple of years? – iridescent 03:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: At some point in the next five years I'll be out of contact, except by intermittent emails, for six to nine months, assuming nothing crazy happens like the Chinese invading. I get a certain amount of leeway in deferring my deployments, as I'm a volunteer reservist, but the only people I'll be able to inform in advance are ArbCom and the office, for security reasons.
 * 1) Question from User:Chaser: Following up from individual question five, what problems do you see ArbCom passing down to the community at ANI? I know about the recent decrease in caseload and increase in case complexity. On the other hand, disputes are only supposed to get to ArbCom because the community is incapable of handling them. It seems odd to me that they'd go the other way.
 * A: That's the key point: disputes are only supposed to get to ArbCom after everything else has been avoided. I can't give specific examples because I don't know the individual history of enough cases, but I personally believe that with a better set of guidelines in place and by better utilising the talents that individual editors and mediators have, that the community could fix more of these problems without having to resort to ArbCom. Please note that I'm not talking specifically about ANI - I'm talking about the wider range of pre-ArbCom community procedures, all the way from simple talk page discussions to complex non-ArbCom community bans. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So how can ArbCom or individual arbitrators change how disputes are handled before they even get to ArbCom, besides being personally involved in dispute resolution at those prior stages?--Chaser (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: Through discussion and consensus with the community at various community discussion boards, or through encouraging more people to become mediators, or allowing uninvolved administrators to have more leeway in solving minor disputes before they become major ones which need Arbcom intervention. I know it sounds like a bit of a cheap answer, but this is something that needs a fair bit of time and community support to get going, and I feel that getting ArbCom more involved with the community - while maintaining an appropriate neutrality - can only be a good thing.
 * 1) Question from Sven Manguard  Talk  : You are dating someone who, at this point, is a shoe in for the mop. While I do not believe that this is inherently an issue, I'd like your assurances that you will recuse yourself from any cases involving Panyd as a named or significantly implied party. Furthermore (the question part) can you detail what, if any, effort the two of you currently make and/or will make if this campaign is successful, in order to avoid the illusion or commission of impropriety?
 * A: You - and the community - have my sincere assurances, of course. I will recuse myself from any and all cases involving Panyd or any cases where there is significant concern about my ability to remain impartial. As to the avoidance of 'impropriety', we are an unusual case, but I believe I have the ideal solution. Currently, I deal with all emails pertaining to the armed forces through a separate email account, the password of which is kept secret from everyone who does not need it - including Panyd. While I trust Panyd implicitly, she knows that she cannot read my emails or any instructional material I bring home. Any hard copies are kept under lock and key, and only I have the key. Anything confidential is kept confidential; this is especially important given the special vulnerabilities encountered by myself and my 'comrades' as reservists living in a community which is occasionally hostile to those in uniform. I propose to do the same with ArbCom emails - a separate account, a separate password, and accessing the aforementioned only when Panyd is unable to view the screen. I'd also like to note that we'll both not only be administrators (potentially), but we are already OTRS volunteers with access to the legal, quality and donations queues - and thus are both already identified to the Foundation. We have knowledge of current lawsuits against the Foundation, and the email addresses and private phone numbers of hundreds of celebrities. None of this have ever leaked out. We're on first name terms with most of the people in the office and are involved heavily in fundraising this year, including organising a Wikimedia-branded fundraising party in central London. Because of this, I am confident in asserting that even if the worst did happen and Panyd was accidentally to access my emails, she is no less trustworthy than myself. We have both invested a good portion of our lives into this project, and we hold the ideals of the Foundation dear.
 * 1) Question from ScienceApologist: Seeing as how you declared yourself to be fairly "strict", do you see yourself adopting a punitive rather than preventative model for imposing blocks and bans on other users? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: I wouldn't be comfortable supporting a punitive block or a punitive ban on anyone. They're not constructive and serve only to create drama and drive constructive editors away. I'm fairly strict because coming down hard on a persistent offender (for example, a persistent wheel-warring admin) prevents further disruption to the project - but no, I don't support using blocks, bans or sanctions for punishment.
 * 1) Question from Shooterwalker: Seems you would agree some long-term content disputes need intervention, but are skeptical of ArbCom directly setting content (or content policy). You mention the possibility of setting processes such as binding dispute resolution, while acknowledging their difficulty. Could elaborate on how ArbCom might set up dispute resolution for long-term content disputes, how it might differ from a typical RFC, and suggest how you might navigate potential difficulties? Shooterwalker (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: I think your question insinuates that my answers (above) are a little vague. There's a reason for that. Although I have plenty of experience in resolving disputes, I'm a little rusty on the dispute resolution process. I've never had to go through it myself, nor have I had to take another user through it. I've always managed to sort out my disputes without involving a third party. As such, setting up a dispute resolution process for long-term content disputes would, in my mind, involve more of a reform of existing processes guided by the community and those involved. I've had some users raise the issue of MEDCOM with me, and how they're frustrated at mediation often failing because not all parties agree to it. Long-term content disputes where there isn't an issue with user content could be sorted out there - if the mediation committee was given the leeway to be a little stricter in coercing uncooperative users to discuss things. I'm aware that this raises its own problems, and in line with my answers I'd look for community support and community opinion before taking any action, but I think the majority would agree with me that something needs to be done.
 * No more vague than most of the other candidates. There's only so much detail you can offer in one answer. Thanks for answering clearly and honestly. And good luck! Shooterwalker (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: Do you have any idea how hard it is for some of us to get past your username when trying to evaluate your candidacy? Have you thought about how it might affect your interactions with the community if you become an arb?  Thanks. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: This was brushed over in my RfA and hasn't really been an issue since. People normally refer to me as CMLITC, Cavalry, or Chaseme. I'm open to suggestions to make things easier for the community, but in general, if someone has the wherewithal to be involved in ArbCom (even as someone who reads and never edits), they'll have the ability to parse my admittedly long username. Like I said though, if I can make it easier in any way, I'm open to suggestions. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The issue isn't the length of your name per se, but that its, er, evocativeness tends to make a bigger impression than the words leading up to it.  I've seen you around ANI many times, but when I tried to remember what impressions I had of you, I drew a blank.  As a longtime project watcher I have detailed thoughts about many editors.  In your case I basically don't remember a thing about you, either in your favor or against you, except that I've seen your sig hundreds of times. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at! I tend to avoid expressing an opinion during drama episodes, instead simply working towards fixing the problem. Is it a problem that I don't stir up positive or negative views? I tend to see it as a compliment, given that we're supposed to remain neutral! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: You've expressed a preference that, except in unusual situations, arbcom shouldn't  directly set content (or content policy). However, in many cases arbcom does impact content by banning or topic banning certain editors (the race and intelligence case you quote above for example). Why, in your opinion, is it preferable for arbcom to indirectly impact content rather than do so directly? --RegentsPark (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: I'm going to use a metaphor to describe this, so bear with me: Wikipedia is a garden; a patch of land upon which plants and shrubs grow to form a natural (but managed) piece of woodland, much like a National Forest. ArbCom act as the wardens, only getting involved where required. Occasionally, one species becomes too invasive and begins to kill other plants, destroying the wider forest and choking growth. These invasive species are the problem editors. It's not ArbCom's job to wade in and landscape the entire forest: ArbCom are there to trim back certain trees, remove the invasive species, introduce new wildlife, and removing the choking weeds. Making smaller changes - such as banning specific editors and clarifying policy - allows for the community to grow naturally and peacefully with minimal interference from a committee which cannot fully approximate the ideals of the whole community. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate the response (and love the metaphor). Good luck! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from teinesaVaii  (talk) . As a member of ArbCom aimed to deal fairly and justly with Wikipedia issues on a Global worldwide context (and as a last resort often following heated clashes/conflicting views) - in your reply in Question 5 above you say assuming nothing crazy happens like the Chinese invading....implication here that the Chinese are 'foreigners'/'threat' - when the vision of wikipedia is the world contributing to the sum of all knowledge. I am curious. My quesstion is - How will you deal with cases from our global wikipedia community in a fair and just member on ArbCom where your personal point of view may be in conflict? If a case came up involving USA and China, for example, and with you being a member of the military, would you declare a conflict of interest and 'sit it out'? Or do you think you will still be able to perform in a fair manner on such cases? How can you assure the community that you will do so on ArbCom? (I'm not Chinese, nor am I in China -  I'm just curious about your answer). Thank you very much.teinesaVaii   (talk)  11:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: My "assuming nothing crazy happens like the Chinese invading" comment was a light-hearted play on the fears some of western society have these days, I don't mean to infer that the Chinese would invade, of course - the idea is ludicrous! I think my being both well-educated and in the military gives me a wider, more comprehensive and neutral view of the world than most, and the strict rules of engagement which the RN follow (contained, in my case, in ROE cards A, B and E), shows that even if someone is shooting at me, I can be expected to keep calm and not take it personally.
 * In the past week, I've spoken to a wide range of people, from USAF officers to Hong Kong editors to devout Somali Muslims, and been pleasant, friendly and neutral to them all. If a case came up involving the USA and China - to take your example - I wouldn't have a conflict of interest particularly, as the US and UK aren't as close as people think. However, if we're talking about, for example, the Falklands War - a very touchy subject for myself, and one in which I have a clear conflict of interest - I would recuse myself from the entire case, because I'm a member of one of the parties.
 * I think the key point of whether or not I recuse myself in a case is whether both sides see me as a neutral arbitrator. If one side is clearly - and for good reason - unable to bring themselves to trust in my neutrality, I'd be stepping aside to allow other Arbitrators to carry out the rulings. Certainly, I would not sit on a case if the community showed a consensus that I should not and asked me to recuse myself. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.teinesaVaii  (talk)  01:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: I've assembled a set of questions for the 12 candidates listed here. The questions are intended to see how you would respond to situations you will probably encounter if elected. I've picked one question for each candidate listed at the link above; the other questions can be seen here. Please feel free to answer only the selected question below, or all of them if you chose. Your question is what would you do in the following situation?: "Parties to a case you are drafting prove to be incapable of submitting adequate evidence". Carcharoth (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A: