Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/SirFozzie/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 have done all these things during the past year. I was the primary drafting arbitrator of the Alastair Haines 2 arbitration case, along with User:Newyorkbrad, and a secondary drafting arbitrator for the Stevertigo 2 case, along with User:Kirill Lokshin. I currently serve as an Arbitrator member of the Audit Subcommittee, and generally handle the volume of incoming email (which is mostly separating out the large amount of spam from complaints, and replying to those who who wish to make complaints to the AUSC. I also serve as a member of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, which is currently being handled in more of an ad-hoc fashion by various of the committee. SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 14 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 feel like I've held up under the stress of being a member of the Arbitration Committee and its various sub-committees rather well, taking a weekend here and there to de-stress and come back at contentious issues with a fresh viewpoint. As for the public outing and attempts to embarrass me, it's happened a couple times, I've earned a spot on Hivemind, and a couple other sites which attempt to poke fun at Wikipedia and those who administrate it. SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 14 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: I generally would support this. The copyright status of emails is unclear. It is generally believed you're allowed to quote selective parts of them (as a fair use defense), but the full email would likely cause at least questions of copyright. Also, emails have a general expectation of privacy.
 * 1) *(b) "Responsibility"
 * A: Definitely. If you cannot defend the actions taken publicly, then at the very least, you need to inform the functionaries and/or the committee BEFORE you do it, if at all.
 * 1) *(c) "Perceived legal threats"
 * A: This actually formed part of the core of the second Alastair Haines case from this year (which I co-authored the decision, with Newyorkbrad). The user in question continued to make statements that were construed (or could reasonably be construed) as legal threats. The user in question was banned by the decision of the Committee for one year (the maximum standard ban that the Committee applies in cases) along with a special provision that before the user returns, that he would supply the Committee with assurances that he would refrain from such edits).
 * 1) *(d) "Outing"
 * A:I agree with the principle. In general, if you self-disclose information about yourself, there is no putting the genie back into the bottle. Please note the difference from self-disclosure (I am Joe Schmo) to being outed another user posts (User:X is Joe Schmo!). SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 14 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 from column A and a bit from column B, actually. I believe that in general, bans should be quick to apply, but quick to lift. I support in most cases that if a banned user does good work elsewhere (for example other WMF sites if they are site-banned, or other topic areas if they are topic-banned), that we can lift the sanctions earlier. However, if we can point to misbehavior elsewhere that shows the lesson has not been learned, I would be more willing to take a hardline on lifting (or een in some cases, extending) sanctions. As for factors that might sway me one way or the other.. If people realize they made a mistake and pledge to avoid the mistakes in the future, I'm willing to cut a bit more slack. However, if you're a repeat visitor or frequent visitor (as shown in several cases which featured users making a repeat trip to ArbCom, such as the Stevertigo, or AH cases, or some of the parties in the recently-completed Climate Change case), I tend to take more of a hardline view. You've been through the wringer before, and should know not to repeat the behavior that caused the previous issues. SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 14 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: We've had several issues over the past twelve months where policies have conflicted with each other and ArbCom have had to make a judgment call on how the policies interacted (for example, the motion passed in January's BLP deletions request, where I specifically stated that those who objected to the mass deletion of articles also had policies on their side). ArbCom should not be creating policies out of whole cloth. I personally think that the result was GENERALLY positive (although the momentum seems to have stalled, and I hope we can get a new push to reduce the backlog of unreferenced BLP's to nil in the new year). SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 14 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: There's two ways that ArbCom can resolve content disputes, and neither of them apply directly to the content itself. The first way that ArbCom can help to aid content disputes is to possibly remove the bad faith actors from one or both sides (those who treat the area as a battleground, or a fight to be "won"). The other is to attempt to establish a framework for the parties to have a binding poll as to the content (such as the Ireland Article Names case) SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 14 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: No one's going to hail Climate Change. I think the right decision was reached, as a framework was put in place to fix the area going forward. I think the general community will agree that 16 weeks was too long to get it into place, however. In the Committee's defense (not that I think it needs it), the amount of ill will and edit-warring DURING the case was unprecedented. It would be like trying to balance a scale, only whole you were trying to make sure the scales were balanced, the two sides continually threw more weight on the scales. Hopefully, the lessons learned in that area will serve the Committee going forward. I think that the cases I worked on (see above), while both relatively straight-forward, were successful. The issue was identified, the framework was put into place, and enacted relatively quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 14 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:One thing the Committee has done in the past few weeks as we recover from the Climate Change Omnibus case is a weekly email identifying open/active issues and reminding folks to get into the various cases before they grow stale. I'd like to see that continue (I am currently the person sending the emails, but if I am not back on the Committee in 2011, I hope someone takes over the reminders) SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 14 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 User:Shooterwalker Your Q6 answer... how would you identify "bad faith actors" that should be removed from discussions? Ideally... what behaviors you'd look for and policy ground you'd have for restricting that editor. But if you can only "know it when you see it" then I'd accept a few examples of editors you've spotted as unfit for consensus building (name names, basically). Would this just be a remedy for content disputes, or for content policy disputes too? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Edited down to the 75-word maximum.  Tony   (talk)  13:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A:"Bad faith actors" are the ones that generally inflame any dispute. They are the loudest, most strident, people in a dispute. These are the people who never discuss, always revert, never takes it to the talk page, etcetera. As another sign, they usually do not end up commenting on the content at hand, but instead they target the person suggesting the content. As for the policy grounds, WP:CONSENSUS is a very important one, as it is the cornerstone of how articles (and policies) should be formed, as is WP:BATTLEGROUND. As Wikipedia is an open-editing encyclopedia, you will need to be able to discuss encyclopedia entries with people who believe differently than you in an open and rational way. As for the discussion on whether it applies to policy as well as article content, I see no reason why it shouldn't. Wikipedia's policies provide a framework to build our articles on, so it is just as important to deal with other editors in a good-faith manner. Thanks for your question. SirFozzie (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from The Resident Anthropologist As a sitting member of Arbcom for the past two years. What do you consider your most important contributions you have made in the role of Arbitrator?
 * A: Hi, TRA... I would say over the last year (my time period of being an arbitrator), my most important contributions have been two fold. I'm pretty proud of my public work as an arbitrator, but I'm also proud about the work done behind the scenes (taking incidents that have the ability to cause an excessive amount of drama if they landed on-Wiki, and trying to resolve them with my fellow arbitrators). Everyone focuses on the Arbitration Cases that we face, but no one knows the amount of work that goes on behind the scenes as well. But of my work on-wiki over the past twelve months, I think I'm most proud of my work as a drafting arbitrator n the two cases I had a significant hand in. Thanks for the question SirFozzie (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards How do you preserve the issue of plagiarism and close paraphrasing considering the fact that it is detected only after a lot of damage has been done and several thousand articles are affected and unlike cut and paste Copyright violations users are unaware of this. Even in Academic institutions it is detected only through Turnitin and most Recent change Patrollers and Vandal Fighters cannot detect it.How can it be remedied  early?
 * There's no panacea, or magic bullet for this. I'd suggest that in general, a good thing is to always have other people take a long and serious look at your work and the sources you've provided, to make sure that you do not inadvertently step on the wrong side of that line. After the recent events (those you reference and the other events as well), I asked a couple people to take a look at a few articles I was a major contributor to, just to make sure I was on the right side of that line. Taking care when you're creating or expanding articles is very necessary. I don't think there's any way we can detect it as it happens, but when it does happen, we should expect that it be corrected expeditiously. Thanks for your question. SirFozzie (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from ScottyBerg The Climate Change arbitration has been criticized by a large number of participants of all philosophical viewpoints on these grounds (among others): it took far too long; lack of participation in the workshop process by arbitrators; lack of guidance to parties during the workshop phase; arbitrators failed to provide direction as to issues that needed to be addressed and were generally uncommunicative. Can you address these concerns?
 * Well, as I would be judged as involved (and I really don't like back benching the job my fellow arbitrators did in something I was not able to participate in, due to my recusal). I will say this, however.
 * The Climate Change arbitration case was pretty much unprecedented in the level of discourse (both polite/civil and those that were seriously lacking in either virtue. I sometimes say that an Arbitration case is a microcosm of the entire issue, and it helps the Committee determine who can or cannot work with others going forward (if you cannot work civilly with others while the magnifying glass of an arbitration case going on, how can the Committee trust you to do so when you are no longer being so closely scrutinized?). So we had two opposing forces that reached critical mass, and endless provocations, counter-provocations, accusations, personal attacks and other such issues to deal with.
 * This combination of factors became a toxic brew that made the Committee's jobs so much more difficult then it already was. Again, I compare trying to find equitable and just remedies that allow the area to be normalized to trying to balance a set of scales.. but doing so while both sides continuously keep throwing weight on, throwing things out of whack. So, were there lessons to be learned as Arbitrators? Yes, yes there was. I'd suggest more involvement on the case pages, and possibly being more aggressive to shut down ongoing wars (possibly by way of injunctions and temporary topic bans). It's something to look at from all sides. Thanks for your question, Scotty. SirFozzie (talk) 21:16, 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:Hi Barts: I'm not necessarily sure that there's a problem, we still have a bit over five days left in the nominations period, and from what I understand, there are quite a few people trying to decide if they want to run or not. Yes, we may not get 11 candidates, and even if we did, we may not have 11 successful candidates at the end to fill the spots. However, if we do not get a full Committee at the end of the election, it's not necessarily the end of the world. The Committee is currently handling issues pretty well with about 12 or so active Arbs. I do share the concern that this would probably cut out the safety margin for further arbtirator resignations/burnout, but.. while I like having as diverse group of opinions on the committee as possible, this IS a volunteer position, and we cannot dragoon people into the role. I have to say that while this is a job, and it can be stressful at times, I believe the work we do is worth it. If people are reading this and on the fence.. if you think you can do it.. step forward! Thanks for your question. SirFozzie (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from User:Ipsign If there is a case where somebody challenges existing policy as inapplicable to his/her specific case (in a sense invoking WP:IAR implicitly or explicitly), are you willing to perform analysis all the way up to "five pillars" to see if this claim of inapplicability has its merits, or you prefer to stick to existing policies and/or precedents (which can be roughly described as a sort of stare decisis philosophy applied to Wikipedia)? Ipsign (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A:Hi, Ipsign: I'm usually a skeptic when it comes to IAR actions. I have no problems with IAR actions that are non-controversial and are designed to get around those hinky little bits of policy that just get in the way. However, I've seen IAR too many times used for "I don't like this policy, so I'm going to do it anyway and claim IAR". That I have a problem with (especially if the person hasn't brought up the issue of that policy previously on the talk page of the policy). So, I'm willing to hear explanations, and see how they work with our core policies (the five pillars, etcetera), but the explanation had better be a good one.Hope this answers your question. Thanks.. SirFozzie (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion of this answer has been moved to the talk page.
 * 1) Question from User:BorisG A major criticism of the current arbitration (and governance) system is that it focuses too much on conduct at the expense of content, which is, arguably, the goal of the whole enterprise. This is summarised nicely in essay on the Arbitration Committee|Heimstern's essay. Do you agree there is a problem? What needs and can be done about it, if anything? Can ArbCom do anything in particular. - BorisG (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: I have done the exact thing you talk about, over a fairly long period of time, in the nationalist area of The Troubles. I *DO* agree that the Arbitration Committee must stand behind folks who are doing their best to impartially moderate an area. However, there's a flip side to that. The longer one stays moderating an area, the more likely they are to (consciously or unconsciously), drift away from the impartiality needed in such areas. In those cases, it would probably be for the best for those administrators to be thanked fr their service, but asked to move on from the area. (Of course, there needs to be another/more administrator(s) who are willing to step in.. something that's not always available). As for the other part, I agree, at least in the most part.. one does not necessarily need to be uncivil to be treating the area as a Battleground, and one can hide personal attacks behind polite words. It makes it harder, there's no big flashing sign that says "Hi! I'm here for the war" like those who use inappropriate language and throw personal attacks around willy-nilly, it means you have to dig through their whole record. The difficult thing is separating the user who feels strongly about a subject area, but is willing to take the time to gather sources, and seek consensus, and those who are playing the political game. The hardest thing to do, is not to react when someone is casting aspersions on you, but when it comes to RfC, it is very necessary. There have been several editors in the past who have been very good at needling others into reactions which then were used against them, but I don't think it's restricted to any one group of editors. Thanks for your question... I'm probably going to re-read that essay several times and try to think about the various cases I've been a part of. SirFozzie (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from Offliner. In the past, a remedy often used by ArbCom to solve a large-scale dispute has been to ban an equal number of editors from both sides. What do you think of this approach? Offliner (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A:I disagree, Offliner. I've never looked to treat topic banning editors as a numbers exercise. "Well, I've voted to topic-ban/ban six of one side, but only three of the other. Better find three more, wouldn't want things to get unbalanced!". Usually, these things balance out naturally, (as the consensus model pretty much demands if one side is much bigger then the other, they'll either be able to force through consensus or do enough to make the other side look bad enough they are removed). When I write/vote on a decision, I look at the evidence provided. If the evidence is valid and the remedy seems like it will be effective in fixing the problem, I'll vote to support it, or write it up. If not, I won't. Thanks for your question. SirFozzie (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question A group of editors works together to protect the content on a certain set of articles. Another bunch of editors decides that this represents a violation of Wikipedia's article ownership rules and so complain loudly until there is an arbitration case. Should the content-expertise of the group of editors accused of ownership be considered in the arbitration ruling? If so, how? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A:Considered? Yes. It's a factor, but it is not the sole factor or even the majority factor. Someone can be what I call "right, in the wrong way". Just being an expert on the subject does not free you from he necessity to avoid treating the area like a battleground, give a free-pass in edit-warring (other then the usual exceptions, such as blatant vandalism, etcetera), or the requirement to seek consensus. Those are the pillars on which Wikipedia rests. SirFozzie (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: In your candidate statement, you mention your service on AUSC and BASC and "the normal duties of an Arbitrator" and that you are proud of your service on the Committee this year. Could you expand on this and say how well you think AUSC and BASC functioned this year and what changes (if any) are needed? Also, what are you least proud of/would aim to improve, from the past year? Carcharoth (talk) 19:55, 28 November 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:Both AUSC and BASC were not quite as smooth-running as I would have preferred. On the BASC side, things started to slip through the cracks due to the high volume of email, and slow response rates on a couple findings. Currently this is being handled on an ad-hoc basis, since BASC uses ArbCom-L for its discussions, rather than waiting for the three specified arbitrators to speak on replies, the full committee is open to speak on an appeal and suggested actions. In AUSC's case, we didn't have as many reports as the previous year, but our work was severely curtailed due to the community members slowly drifting away, and running into time constraints in trying to replace them. I think the new members of the Committee will have a large say in how BASC/AUSC are handled in the new year, but off the top of my head, I think I would suggest that BASC continue as an ad-hoc subcommittee in the new year, and sometime early in the new year (feb or so), run a AUSC sub-election, with 3 primary winners, and then as many alternates as feasible, in order of acceptance. But again, this is just my quick thoughts off the top of my head. I've served on both committees for the last 11 months, and to be quite honest, if the new Arbitrators want to stand up for either of those sub-committees to start, I'd be just fine in letting them do so. As for the least proud of? Hmm.. I'd say the fact that there was a couple times I let my frustration show, either on-wiki or during discussions between arbitrators. Have to remember we're just doing a job, and we're all human. SirFozzie (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: In your response to question 6 and the shooterwalker follow-up, you note that bad-faith actors are easy to identify because they are the strident ones in a dispute. However, as we've seen in some recent cases, sometimes they are the modicum of politeness and good behavior. It is their content edits, their focus on particular areas, and often off-wiki activities on other websites that indicate their bad faith or unique POV. Could you comment on whether there are any circumstances where content can guide the identification of bad-faith editors and also on the role of using off-wiki (but known) information to identify these editors?--RegentsPark (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A: Hi Regents Park. I'll try to answer this tonight or tommorrow, and sorry for the delay.. life is currently getting in the way SirFozzie (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC) . I would say that most bad-faith actors are as I say, but, yes, there are some who manage to act one way on the Wiki and another way off it. For example, It happened during a recent case where I was recused, so it didn't weight at all into the decision, but did color my viewpoint regarding the topic area and what it would take to "fix" the area. But still, again, it's mostly conduct, not content that I look at. It's not easy, but people can hide their POV here, and their true feelings. However, you take them to a partisan message board (or even a non-partisan one where they blow off steam), and the bad-faith becomes apparent. Sorry about the delay. :) SirFozzie (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries about the delay and thank you for the response (which sounds fair!). Good luck! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A: Hi Regents Park. I'll try to answer this tonight or tommorrow, and sorry for the delay.. life is currently getting in the way SirFozzie (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC) . I would say that most bad-faith actors are as I say, but, yes, there are some who manage to act one way on the Wiki and another way off it. For example, It happened during a recent case where I was recused, so it didn't weight at all into the decision, but did color my viewpoint regarding the topic area and what it would take to "fix" the area. But still, again, it's mostly conduct, not content that I look at. It's not easy, but people can hide their POV here, and their true feelings. However, you take them to a partisan message board (or even a non-partisan one where they blow off steam), and the bad-faith becomes apparent. Sorry about the delay. :) SirFozzie (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries about the delay and thank you for the response (which sounds fair!). Good luck! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)