Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Off2riorob/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 would look to assist in any way I was able, all of the above except e, f and g, as I have no checkuser and oversight experience. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 don't see being an Arbiter as being any more stressful than being an editor, just a different type of contribution. I will enjoy the responsibly. As for threats, on wiki threats are not allowed and personal attacks are a block-able offense. Real life threats .. I will deal with in the usual way, self preservation, including any lawful and legal means at my disposal. As for outing, should that happen, I have nothing that I am ashamed of. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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: Support - There is some hair splitting over legal issues of copyright and fair use claims of minimal quotes, imo best practice is that there is a presumption that personal communications are private and we should respect that by not further distributing them, or publishing them in whole or in part into the public domain. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) *(b) "Responsibility"
 * A: Support - We are all responsible for all of our contributions and if requested should be able to explain and support them within policy and guidelines, either in public or if considered necessary in private to the committee. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) *(c) "Perceived legal threats"
 * A: Support - Users comments should be expressed in such a manner so as not to imply or threaten legal action of any description. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) *(d) "Outing"
 * A: Support - Once the detail has been released by a user it is not outing to repeat it. If retracted then users wishes in such situations should in the spirit of good will be observed, oversight of personal previously revealed information is possible and good practice imo would be not to perpetuate the private detail. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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: - A bit of both, depending on all the history of the report and using my common sense and giving consideration to the projects goals and ambitions. After a detailed look at all the information  there are times to say, enough is enough and times when minimal restrictions are appropriate. Consideration should be given to preserving an environment wherein users can contribute without being or feeling unnecessarily disrupted. As for desysopping.. in an emergency, a temporary desysopping. If the account appeared compromised or if there were other issues that endangered the project, these would have to be quite obvious and quite serious, like vandalism using the tools, or if the Administrator was to unblock themselves, for example, and a case after if required. All other issues would require a case or a community recall. Deysopping would be an option in a case brought to Arbcom for repeated misuse of Administrative authority. Off2riorob (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. reasons... Wikipedia guidelines encourage discussion and say that policy creep is not part of the stated remit of ARBCOM - Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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: - Content is out of Arbcom's remit, but the issues that surround and aid the creation of and improvement of content are within the remit and guidelines for assisting that can be set down and imposed on articles or related articles in a topic field. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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: - As I have no access to all the details that the committee had at that time I feel unable to comment about individual cases. The wider picture is that I support any case recommendations that assisted in creating a less disrupted environment to assist the creation of educational content and its publication under commons compatible licenses to as wide an audience as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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: - I am not looking to reform the committee, if I can as a member of it assist in minor improvements then I will be happy. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

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 from Jehochman: You've received several recent blocks. Can you explain how you'd be effective  as an arbitrator when you've been experiencing such issues?
 * A: - Thanks for asking. I see my blocks as part of my all round experience gained in the project and don't see they will impede my decisions if I was to be successful in this position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from Jenks24: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't appear to be an admin. Do you feel you can still be an effective arbitrator despite not having the admin "privileges"? (Also if you were elected, how would it work with you not being able to see deleted edits etc?)
 * A: - With Administrative status not being a requirement of application, I don't see it being an issue, although I would be looking to avoid any undue or unnecessary authority creep. Off2riorob (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from ElijahBosley: Looking at your impressive contribs. list, it looks like you usually start Wikiediting before 8am and keep at it all day until 9 or 10pm, every day. Massive amounts of editorial experience: but how would you respond to the concern that adding arbitration to that workload is too much?
 * A - Hi .. Yes, I like to be connected to the WWW whenever I am awake. I am fully expecting that if I am successful in my application that for the duration of this position it will become my main contribution to the project and that I will reduce my contributions to my present contribution fields and commit myself to the requirements associated with this position. Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from Shooterwalker: You mentioned that ArbCom should not set content, but that ArbCom might focus on "issues that surround and aid the improvement of content", and "creating a less disrupted environment". Should an ArbCom remedy ever include a setting parameters for a dispute resolution process to help editors stabilize a battleground topic? What might this remedy include, and what should this remedy avoid? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A - Hi Shooterwalker, no I don't see dispute resolution as something for ARBCOM to dictate, good advice is always welcome but such avenues should have expired by the time disputes reach the committee. Stabilizing of topics would include discretionary sanctions and edit restrictions. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from TreasuryTag—Given your stated opinions about the consensus-building process and about how to neutrally word articles  could you please outline what makes you confident that you can effectively, fairly and impartially resolve editing disputes (or, in your words, "to assist in judging and voting on disputes")?
 * A - Hello, yes, I fully support my comments there, seems like a reasonable position to take in an attempt to balance attacking derogatory additions in a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from Epeefleche—I see that you received your 11th block (if I am counting correctly) just hours ago.  Given your answer to the first query above, do you feel you have gained sufficient all-round experience in the project to avoid blockable behavior in the future?
 * A - Hello, yes, a poor block, reduced to half and then overturned in thirteen minutes, reflective of many recently overturned Administrative actions. Here is my statement in relation to it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Do you have an account at an external criticism site, such as WR - if so, would you be willing to supply us with the account name? I understand that this may seem like duplication of a question, but I want to ensure that this one is answered fully.
 * A - No, I have no critical external account. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from HighKing - I see you've disclosed that you are also User:Diamond days and you say it was a test account. You created the account on 20th August 2009 with a User Page and User Talk page, but didn't edit until 18th Nov 2009.  What were you testing? --HighKing (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A - Hello, you are testing my memory now. as I remember at the time, I was considering some different ideas, one was a WP:fresh start and another was creating an account to simply vandal fight with as my watchlist was getting large and in the longer term I simply made a few test edits and left it at that, testing the community's response to a new account. Off2riorob (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from Spaceclerk - In this entry, you have consistently refused repeated requests to engage in any of the many proposed means for achieving consensus, and you have done so in ways that are by turns arbitrary, inflexible, authoritarian, sectarian, and imperious, while reserving unto yourself an ungranted right of personal veto over every word in the entry itself. Which of these qualities do you think will best serve you on ARBCOM? Spaceclerk (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A - Hello, ah yes, almost all of the attributes I display there will be useful. That article was the subject of an OTRS complaint and since cleansing of what was an awful attack page on a living person I have discussed and defended NPOV and BLP from users wanting to attempt to return the article towards its previous position, including, single issue, recently created accounts like yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) After the Pending Changes trial ended, there was a poll about keeping it on until the next version was released. You got a bot to deliver a notice about the poll to users who had edited previous poll pages. At the time there was some concern (see WT:Pending_changes/Straw_poll_on_interim_usage). Do you think the discussion you had prior to delivery was extensive enough to establish a consensus for said delivery? And since you were involved, was it appropriate for you to take that action? - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This question has been edited to meet the 75 word maximum, or at least get much closer to it. The original question is on the talk page.
 * A -Thanks Kingpin13, I will give this interesting question some thought and reply tomorrow, regards. Here is a link to the discussion that occurred prior to the bot request on Jimmy's talkpage. My ongoing position regarding pending changes is spelled out in the answer to Lar's Q3 here - Looking back with hindsight, I wouldn't request the bot now in a similar situation, the watchlist notice would have been plenty. I never gave much thought to if consensus or a lengthy discussion was even required to notify previous involved users, if there was a weight of objection I wouldn't have requested it, at the time there was a degree of support for notification and I jumped in to help - although with hindsight, I should have waited longer to get feedback for the bot request. I had notified all the previous people involved in the discussion previous by hand and didn't fancy having to repeat that process. There was general support that my notification wording was completely neutral and the percentage was pretty similar to the first poll, so ultimately I don't think it actually had any effect. That was a difficult issue with a very vocal minority of opposition. I feel I learnt a lot from it and I made a couple of mistakes which I won't repeat in future. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 26 November 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?: "Poorly assembled ban appeals arrive at the mailing list and will require work to sort out". Carcharoth (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A: - I would have a look and see what it was all about, and if I could help, I would. As for some pf the other questions ..
 * 1 - Parties to cases post repeatedly to your talk page, and/or e-mail you and/or the mailing list
 * - A - Simple discussions with users in related cases, more than that, direct him to the clerk. - Off2riorob (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2 - Real life intervenes while you are halfway through voting on a case and you don't know when you will be able to continue
 * - A - I see it all as real life, finish it or leave a note that you will finish it tomorrow. Off2riorob (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Urgent: How do you defend this? . You appear to be asserting that a correctly formatted but factually incorrect biography is better than an incorrectly formatted but factually correct one. Surely you cannot possibly have meant that? Guy (Help!) 23:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * - A - This seems more of a content issue than anything else, so I have moved the discussion to your talkpage, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)