Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/FT2/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: In my previous time at Arbcom I did all these extensively (at that time Arbcom handled ban appeals directly) with the exception of email management and audit subcommittee which were not applicable then. With the caveat that I would anticipate a mix and nothing's set in stone,
 * These 8 will be major areas I focus on a lot:
 * (a) + (c) Review of proposed decisions and Case requests - crucial jobs. Especially case requests where the decision must be made to offer help or decline. Suggestions and advice are especially valuable if a decision is to be declined, because the concerned user(s) still feel in need of help.
 * (h) + (i) Communication - I have always seen communicating as crucial and will continue to do so.
 * (g) Oversight (especially on irc) - quick and simple and never enough oversighters there.
 * (Including three areas you haven't mentioned)
 * (k) Double checking procedural proposals, approaches, draft emails, etc - review of other matters is an area I am very active.
 * (l) Improvements to Arbcom's own processes - some thoughts are in my statement and extended statement and a few specific areas in the latter
 * (m) Disputes within the committee - Arbs are human. Arbs get stressed. 2-3 times a year at least, arbs will all but come to blows and civil war breaks out on the mailing list. Arbs resign from this and have done so. I've mediated or tried to help reconcile at least a couple of these a year on the functionaries list since 2008 and I know of several on arb-l. Sometimes our worked-till-dropping arbs need reminding to relax, AGF a bit, and grab some TEA, too. I'd consider keeping the list productive a "task", although one rarely arising.
 * Others:
 * (b) Drafting has improved immensely since 2008; I can serve better by co-drafting and proposing approaches to others than writing the formal draft myself.
 * (d) Ban appeals I will probably help on but am best placed to sanity check and spot issues, also if dialog is needed or impressions whether they can contribute I'm good at reading whether rehabilitation seems likely and if they would work well with a mentor - personality and the like. Sometimes I spot a user who could be unbanned when others miss it.
 * (e) CU/OS allocation, vetting, rights Yes, but others may have wider experience of the candidates than I do in many cases. I did do the checkuser shortlisting in 2008, and will opine on users I have experience of, but my main focus here would be AUSC. CU/OS are tools that need the highest quality of review when a case arises, but equally they need reasonableness. Checkusers/oversighters are human and can misread matters, and accusations of misuse are often highly prone to speculation, unchecked assumption, and social pressure. My post on one such a matter is here and may show why high quality is needed in such cases.
 * (f) Checkuser checks - I'm probably accepted as being one of our most experienced checkusers, and I've handed a wide range of subtle, difficult, large-scale, complex of sensitive sock cases, and reviewed evidence or proven the sock rings using behavioral evidence for other checkusers. To be honest I won't make this my focus this time round. There's a substantial CU team specifically so arbitrators can focus on their own remit (oversight is not time consuming so it's different). However I am sure there will be cases where a bit of a hand is needed or there are special concerns or i'm bored, or they're quick. So yes, but limited focus - the quick, the sensitive, or the difficult.
 * (j) Mailing list - I think I'll leave this and just be glad when things arrive in the inbox :)
 * 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: It's been tried. Between 2007 and 2010 I was accused by a (now community banned) user with a grudge of being a pseudoscientist, a cult member, possibly a criminal, smear campaigned, outing attempts and threats, got compared to an angel of death, and the works. It was sad but nothing more. I keep myself private and don't discuss my personal information, but if one day it's not private so be it. I've seen threats tried elsewhere (other arbs have had threats of defamation and against their career), but I'm trying to think exactly how (for me) it would change anything. See also:   What's more important are the standards of conduct that Arbitrators are expected to show in response in the face of any threats or attacks. When after all this the harasser asked to appeal his ban, my sole action was a firm request to fellow Arbitrators that when the appeal was heard I was not to be shown his emails, to protect his right to the fairest hearing and the perception of the fairest hearing. I asked twice more to make sure. I responded harshly to a harasser just once, and that was after a year of it and off-site. A lapse off-site, but one learns from it. In almost 7 years not once on-wiki or on any mailing list. Not a bad record.
 * 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: Yes because it's close enough to being correct. Standard wordings aren't seeking perfection: the tone's right, the meaning clear, the text 95% right, and we don't want to provide ammunition to lawyers. But I would be fine seeing it improved, because as I noted on this exact principle during the Durova RFAR, it's missing something. Ordinary summaries and small extracts are not caught under copyright law any more than quotes from or summaries of books. If such summaries and snips are removed it's because of social norms (disruption/WP:NOT/non-public information/community agreed policy) and not copyright. So there's a second reason behind this principle: we keep private stuff off-wiki as policy and editors should leave their and others' non-public real-world matters, other sites, forums, unverifiable material like claimed emails, etc all offsite. We're here to write an encyclopedia and all of that is an open door to distraction or disruption (or very often is). Best handled by arbcom email if it matters that much. It's unclear whether adding anything to the principle would educate or muddy it though, so on the whole I would veer towards short and simple and unless the case needed it, support as-is.
 * 1) *(b) "Responsibility"
 * A: Close enough to support in most cases, but really needs copyediting (and in some cases may be inadequate). The intended principle covers many nuanced difficult issues ranging between ordinary disputes of no great difficulty through to admin handling, oversight of serious harassment, news blackout requests to WMF, OTRS BLPs etc. The basic idea is spot on - users are responsible for their actions and should be willing to publicly explain and show evidence; if they can't do so publicly then (with very few exceptions) don't act. Three issues:
 * First, the word "or" ("refrain or bring to Arbcom") makes it ambiguous - in severe cases does this mean "acting then disclosing to Arbcom" is allowed? Should it ever be?
 * Second, the exclusion wording. Are we suggesting Checkusers and such are not responsible for their actions or are never obligated to discuss them? At best ambiguous (which "this" doesn't apply?) and at worse comes across as "these users can be unaccountable". The last sentence is well-intentioned but doesn't accurately represent my expectation or (I'm fairly sure) the community's view. I would prefer it reworded that actions under the direct supervision of the Foundation or the Committee have different norms for disclosure and review due to the effect of privacy and other policies. This explains it better. The norms for such actions could then be given as an extra sentence or a more targeted principle. Note also, CU/OS/OTRS/Arbs/Office don't have carte blanche; they too have limits and disclosure requirements so drafting would need care.
 * Third, in cases where a user (of whatever kind) has acted, even if the matter cannot be justified publicly, in many cases a brief public explanation can be given and drama reduced by doing so. Even if Arbcom are told or they are within a CU/OS/AC/OTRS group, they should usually be willing to briefly explain the matter within the terms of policy, or else confirm that Arbcom review has been requested, as such a statement will inform concerned users and help reduce drama.
 * Conclusion: In broad it's usable but in detail it's got weaknesses and needs copyediting. Principles should state project fundamentals and this one doesn't quite do it right, yet.
 * 1) *(c) "Perceived legal threats"
 * A: Support. Fighting words that raise the "heat" are usually best avoided. Noting that claiming a post is defamatory/libelous or could be seen as one, is a statement of opinion not a legal threat to sue the user over it. But strongly urged to be avoided for reasons stated.
 * 1) *(d) "Outing"
 * A: Support with comment and minor copyedit. Narrow ruling that states where information was self-disclosed and removed, then subsequently reposted by another user, we don't describe that as outing (though it is not necessarily free of sanction). Noting that their prior self-disclosure is not to be taken as a license to post other personal or identifying information and attempts to do so will not be taken lightly. Two copyedit points - "their wishes should be respected" seems too mild. Maybe "must be respected"? (And "personal" should probably read "personally identifying".)
 * 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:
 * Strict v. lenient - Editors need to find ways to collaborate productively and honestly within communal norms. Those who can't or won't discourage others and end up degrading the editorial process and content development; it's not harmless and not what we're here for. The community expects the Committee to deal with such issues or provide the means for the community to do so, and Arbcom should. In cases of intentional gaming or abuse, or repeat problems (especially with administrators and experienced users who should know better) I expect a good standard and a firm line is needed to deal with such issues. In many cases someone making positive edits and also problematic ones may be set tight lines that they can either keep within (and not disrupt) or breach and make the matter clear for community handling. In cases where poor prior communication was leading to frustration and subsequent problems, or where the entire issue is an train wreck, a second chance or amnesty with conditions and expectations can be better as a first step, then see who follows them and who remains a problem. As a quick guideline, if a user seems broadly well intentioned and capable of change then try to be understanding but if needed draw line(s) to keep them out of difficulty; if they seem determined to battle then draw a line and make clear that crossing it will be heavily sanctioned or lead to a block/ban; and if they are dishonest or abusive as editors or manipulating, abusing or using the project for personal agendas only, or the problems keep returning, then it is quite usual to remove them (editors should not have to endlessly accommodate unreasonable users).
 * Strict v. lenient (2nd time around) - Arbitration first time aims to "break the back of the dispute" and may have to assume good faith where unclear, so it can vary widely in handling. If a user returns to RFAR a second time and fault is found, stricter handling is usual as they already "know the ropes" and have had a clear chance to improve.
 * Desysopping - I was involved in and broadly support our current practice on desysopping - unless there is a present problem (rapid problematic tool use without reasonable response, compromised account, misuse of deleted pages, etc) there's no rush and a desysop can be done at leisure after a proper case. Temporary removal may happen before that case sometimes if there is a concern over the risk of abuse but it's only temporary pending a hearing. (The only exception is real-world harm, because sanctions aim to protect the project, rather than retaliate or "punish" people or harm their real-world lives. It's possible an admin who also happened to be a public figure and who was contacted about a clear socking concern might be allowed to step down rather than be named in a case for these reasons.)
 * 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: Agree, with the exception of the very end. The community's role is to decide how Wikipedia should work (informally or via agreed policies) and resolve disputes accordingly. Arbcom's role is to resolve the disruptive aspects of the few intractable disputes, by ruling for the community and in line with its understanding of project principles and community norms. Unfortunately some disputes divide the community so badly on "what is right" that it leads to months of disruption, cliques, and "toxic issues". In some cases an undecided norm leads to groups of users undertaking disruptive "out of process" actions in good faith as they jockey for dominance in the debate – deletions, tags, date linking, infoboxes, road and place names, have all been victims. These disputes do immense harm to content improvement and the community's morale and use of time. It's completely unacceptable that we have areas where content or best practice are the fiat of whoever is most tendentious, or whoever can outlast or 'lawyer others to leave, or where content is owned and not written with a neutral point of view. Users seek Arbitration to address these issues by enforcing appropriate communal norms. Hearing evidence for 3 months only to "point out" what the community already knew at the start could be insulting and just angers users on both sides.  I would reword: "[...] If there is an area where the community consensus is divided or unclear, or the applicable policies are unsettled, then the issue should be pointed out to the community. In exceptional cases, temporary measures to minimize disruption and conflict may be specified while the community reaches consensus". This is stronger than mere "pointing out" (which may not achieve anything) but not "making policy". It reduces the battles while editors agree the underlying issue.
 * 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: Four kinds of issues seem to underly persistent content disputes that end up at Arbcom. Arbcom can help as follows:
 * Uncertainty within the topic itself (how reliable is the source, how much weight do sources give the view, what is the predominant view)
 * This cannot be helped directly by Arbcom at all. Indirect help can include addressing disruption and directing the community to seek a consensus (ie adding impetus to resolution efforts but not resolving them directly). Arbitrators are not subject experts and decisions are made by consensus and review of sources, not appeal to authority.
 * Disagreement on best practice (which principle to apply when several speak to an issue, best editorial practice on an issue such as tagging/naming/linking)
 * Arbcom can rule on balancing policies and norms, but when it comes to a fundamental issue such as BLP v. NPOV, BLP and NPOV v. privacy, and especially content practices such as linking and manual of style, it often rightly wishes the community to make a decision. It can act to interpret and clarify norms and reduce disruption, but often it acts to prevent disruption by individuals or groups with strongly held positions, and direct that the warring stops, while consensus is sought.
 * Disruption due to presence or arrival of too many users with strong viewpoints (breakdown of consensus seeking, personality disputes/outing/attacks/bad faith/socking, too many users unaware of wiki-norms, too many fixed/advocacy views, too few neutral balanced voices)
 * This can be helped by the community setting up processes intended to allow tighter regulation of conduct in a topic area, or being approved to do so by Arbcom. General sanctions are one example. Although sanctions of this kind are a mainstay at present they are far from perfect, and it is hard to say any content dispute is truly "resolved" by them in the sense of peace prevailing; it's closer to whack-a-mole than resolution.
 * Disruption due to skilled or tendentious warriors (wikilawyers, civil POV warriors, etc).
 * Readily addressed but take too long to reach Arbcom. By the time they do, the damage can have been ongoing for months or longer. That's in the community's control but again, Arbcom can add impetus by noting if better handling is needed at community level, if it considers there is a systemic issue of edit warriors who could have been curtailed sooner.
 * As to the second part, it's for the community to provide better ways to address content disputes. Arbcom could also propose ideas for the community to consider if they were to think of a possible approach, or could direct new approaches in the form of a content-agnostic remedy (ie not make content decisions but provide a process/framework to help users to do so). I would be strongly opposed to binding content arbitration in any form, which could be incredibly harmful (think "fossilization of content" and "official Wikipedia point of view on the topic" - both anathema). We want to settle disputes but leave topics open for new knowledge or better approaches. This sounds contradictory but it's not. I want to address this area with concrete proposals in 2011 (as an editor). My criteria for any valid Wikipedia content resolution is already in my extended statement (#5). I don't know what to expect as it's a controversial and difficult area, but I think the community wants - and the project needs - better answers.
 * 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: It's hard to pick out any outstanding failures this year. As always cases centered on few users and conduct issues were easier to address than those with an underlying content issue, large-scale controversy, or where the topic editing was unable to fix the root problem because of having too few uninvolved editors. Climate change was one of the widest reported and is widely seen as well decided. On the positive side, the framework and thought that went into it matched the scale of the dispute and an unusually firm approach was taken to root out the basic problems. There has clearly been learning from the past here: it could be effective or at least put a sizable dent in them. The general remedies in particular were cogent and clearly carefully thought - impressive. This case shows Arbcom putting thought into what is needed. On the negative side, the handling of issues and outside perceptions during the case frustrated quite a few and some expressed concerns on the fairness of topic-bans. Keeping the case under tighter control, authorizing clerks to manage case pages more proactively and address combative approaches, and communicating better might have helped here. Cases like this often need refining and repeat cases to bring under control - requests for clarification popped up almost immediately. As the ruling includes sourcing and interaction measures as well as removing many users from the topic, it will take a while to really assess the impact.  Of the others, a number were routine "User X" or "User X v. User Y", including ChildOfMidnight, Stevertigo, Alastair Haines 2. All settled fairly competently; Arbcom has always found cases with small numbers of users and well-defined claims more straightforward to decide on. One case that surprised me procedurally was Chabad movement - I'd have expected simple closing by motion once it became obvious there wasn't a significant arbitrable issue. ("The case has therefore been closed as no sufficient basis of misconduct has been found" followed by the current remedies as a Committee note). But the end result would have been the same.
 * 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: See Extended statement (#4) - "Improving the Committee in 2011".

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: Please explain this indefinite block of your account. Thanks, AD 22:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: The blocking user's own explanation is here. It's described as an "until answer given to a question" block on a matter that many users wanted an answer. User discussion of the block is here. The block was reversed before I saw it, and the blocking admin was noted at RFAR by others and "strongly admonished" - their descriptions can be seen there as well. Arbcom also effectively explained the block as they saw it in their decision, where the blocking admin was advised "not to block users to force further discussion or action on an issue, nor to increase the pace of an issue, and not to take administrator actions with respect to disputes in which she is involved". Slightly longer answer: I can't "explain the block" literally (which would require mind-reading the blocking admin) but I can explain the circumstances. If you want to understand the underlying issue it's on my extended statement (#3). If you then have a follow-up question that's not addressed, please ask it.
 * 1) Question: Leading question: do you think the evidentiary pages are bloated in ArbCom cases? Does this affect arbs' ability to do the job, and to conduct business in a timely manner? Should there be strict(er) deadlines for each phase of a case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)
 * A: Yesno/Yes (but no)/Yesno (!)
 * Yes, evidence pages can be very long and always contain material that's not needed or painful to wade through. But in the complex cases Arbcom's seeing, users need to present evidence of subtle abuse and concerns built up over time and not everyone's a drafting expert, many users are involved... it's got to be accepted they may take inordinate space. Also Arbcom benefits from a flavor of what multiple users feel even if there is duplication (surprisingly not as much as it might seem). So yes the evidence pages are long and could in principle be shorter - but given what they are, I think seeing it as "bloat" to cut down is a non-starter. (Workshop is more promising if you're looking to trim, for what it's worth.)
 * Yes, their length massively affects arbitrators' ability to do the job, and in many ways. Not all arbs review the mountain equally, overlap and omissions take place, tiredness and stress take a toll, digging for the backdrop carefully to be sure who did what and what led to it takes forever, mental indigestion is massive, and the time wasted is also huge. These cause workload stress, timeliness problems, and affect burnout and other jobs.
 * Yes, there should be stricter time limits. But realistically each year cases break new ground. When C68-FM-SV closed in 2008 it was called the "Omnibus case" because of its size and duration. Compare that to Climate change just two years later, there's no comparison. Each year Arbcom gets tougher cases. They also have a huge number of off-wiki cases to handle many of which are priority (privacy, abuse, etc). I'm not sure as a result that we can tie Arbcom's side down to a fixed time. It sounds nice but wouldn't work. We can aim for shorter and easier, and work to do that, but a fixed deadline's not going to happen. They'll be "as long as it takes" until a major paradigm change happens in case handling, or cases "top out" at their most complex (if one can be devised). On the user side, yes, they don't have such issues and deadlines are good. Worth remembering most users are not around all the time though.
 * 1) Question: You point out that *civil* but tendentious editors or disagreements on best practice can cause as much disruption as outright WP:INCIVILITY. But you justifiably shy away from content arbitration, and indicate you might have other proposals (if only as an ordinary editor). Could you elaborate on remedies that might handle these kinds of disputes? Shooterwalker (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: Yes I can. The idea's complete and has been for a while. Posting it here might look like a platform item as an arb, rather than an editor's routine proposal though. Also posting it on-wiki would effectively be proposing it informally. I'm fine emailing it to anyone who asks and is prepared to give considered feedback in return. Will that do?
 * Note: This answer is discussed further at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/FT2/Questions
 * 1) Question: Why did you delete your talk page archives? 184.59.23.225 (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They weren't intended as anything more than a personal archive page for locating discussions on content long ago. They were never claimed to be anything but a personal subpage nor claimed to be complete. I'm surprised anyone would care about it - anyone wanting my talk page history should use the talk page history itself which is complete and verifiable. I deleted the page a year ago when I realized I wasn't using it and wasn't likely to in future. As a userpage that contained non-authoritative copies of another page's history (which was public) for my use and unlikely to be of much wider interest (2 links in 4 years, both very old, until today), no reason to keep it hanging round once I decided I wouldn't be maintaining it any more. FT2 (Talk 04:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: Have you applied to ArbCom for checkuser rights again since you voluntarily resigned them? John Vandenberg (chat) 10:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Question: Hi FT, apologies if this is already resolved. No one cares if you had an alternative account years ago. But the issue continually arises because you've said you didn't, e.g. here, and because of this diff, which says you wrote Hani Miletski and Kenneth Pinyan from scratch. The problem is that Hani Miletski was started by . As was Kenneth Pinyan, not counting earlier deleted edits by someone else. Can you clarify?  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: Yes it's resolved, and you're welcome, I can't find the final link but I found these . My own comment is here (as you know there's an interaction ruling with a banned user hence the brevity). I was contracted by TBP in 2005 with a few inquiries for help. I was a helpful non-admin, I offered my help, copyedited and often redrafted his pages, and helped him with inquiries about sources. This isn't unusual; even now I routinely help others with their article problems when asked or suggest draft email approaches for other OTRS volunteers and functionaries needing a hand. Sometimes I researched, wrote and emailed him what I thought would work, other times we co-edited or corresponded by email. He appeared to be a reasonable if slightly pushy user needing help and a reminder of NPOV, and I was glad to help by collaborating in his edits. (He's solicited several others to help similarly since, evidence available). TBP stopped editing in 2006 when I called him on being a sneaky sock of a blocked warrior. He targeted the contentious topic areas I'd been working in. Worth noting as well since you mention alt accounts  - the topic area contained other people editing under alt accounts (for obvious reasons) - User:JAQ was a self disclosed alt of a never-identified user. (On checking now I'm reminded JAQ had a "sockpuppet" disclosure as of December 2004, which may be where TBP got his) and User:TPK was the first user to welcome me to the wiki. I hadn't planned on returning to the area to deal with warriors or sticking around the area afterwards; I never had the notion to segregate my editing in contentious areas. Sadly I like a challenge and I didn't like the idea of people messing around with the wiki. My user page list of articles was simply intended to list some content I'd done as examples of my content work in difficult areas to be looked at during RFA. It included content I'd written to help others and co-authored. When I created a separate "content work" page long after (Nov 2007) that page inherited any articles listed at my userpage. As part of his review, John Vandenberg asked me to recheck every article I had ever listed there at any time; almost all were accurate. (A couple of articles were duplicates or content forks where I hadn't written the original material, a few I reassessed whether it was a rewrite or a major improvement). Of the two you mention one was already correctly listed as "co-authored", and the other I removed to avoid confusion as the history would not have appeared to support the contention.
 * Note: This answer is discussed further at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/FT2/Questions
 * 1) Question: On what basis do you think that the community should trust you to be an arbitrator? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A:
 * 1) Question: Your candidate statement and your extended statement focus a great deal on your contributions to the arbitration process, on your proposals for making changes to those processes, on detailing various off-wiki matters you have worked on, and on non-arbitration matters. I see very little there about your track record in dealing with actual cases. Could you give examples of cases you drafted or otherwise worked on, and say more about your case voting record? Carcharoth (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC) As disclosed here, this is part of a set of discussions on 'previous service record' that I am initiating with all current and former arbitrators about their candidacies.
 * A:
 * 1) Question: As the person who conducted the analysis of RevisionDelete tool use during its trial period, what are your thoughts on its usage and understanding six months on? –Whitehorse1 21:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A:

Withdrawal notice
See talk page. FT2 (Talk 00:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)