Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/SirFozzie/Questions

Request from the candidate
Hi folks. I'm going to set this talk page up for additional questions and follow-ups to my answers. If you have additional questions for me, or wish to follow up on an answer, please do so here. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

 * Note to readers:
 * This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2010/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and the year before and modified to fit changes in circumstance.


 * Notes to respondents:
 * In some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so.
 * Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.
 * It is also Not Helpful to answer "yes, yes, no, yes" (because you are expecting people to count on their fingers which answers go with which questions...) go ahead and intersperse your answers. We'll know it was you. No need to sign each part unless you want us to know which parts you answered when.
 * For those of you that ran last year (or the year before, etc.), feel free to cut and paste a previous year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded so watch out for that.
 * Where a question overlaps one of the standard questions I have tried to note that and explain what elaboration is desired.


 * The questions


 * 1) Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
 * d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - a trial, which ended up being called WP:Pending changes instead. Please comment on the trial results as they specifically relate to the BLP problem. (there is another question about revisions generally) Would you do anything different in the actual implementation?
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
 * Opt Out is not going to truly be fair... if known, the person's view should at least carry some weight, but you're relying on the person to know about their article on WP. I wouldn't consider a lack of an Opt-Out from someone to be a positive. Default to Delete on BLP is something I generally agree with, personally, but not something I'd be willing to mandate from the ArbCom pulpit, as the policy in that section is currently in flux. I am a proponent of Liberal Semi-Protection. In general, it's a case where we at Wikipedia has already been found wanting (in that a significant piece of vandalism has survived for a period of time, un-noticed by all and sundry.. EXCEPT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO VIEW THE ARTICLE (our audience). D was useful, but I would prefer E personally. I think progress was made (in a method that I really wish didn't happen, the "forcing of the issue" that happened early this year was perhaps necessary, but I can't endorse how it happened). We need to keep momentum on reducing the amount of unwatched, un-sourced BLP's to as low a number as possible.
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * Note: this question has some overlap with #5 and #6 in the general set but goes farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
 * It's a question of policy, the BLP policy and its various sub-policies. As I said at the time, in opposing the BLP findings, that I agreed with the end result, but found the way it was done to be lacking. I truly want all sides to work together towards improving BLP-articles here on Wikipedia. Delete what's appropriate (those which do not pass our guide for notability), improve what's there. My thoughts are that having an un-sourced BLP is not an inherent argument to delete it, or to keep it, but instead to take a good hard full look at the article, source it and upgrade it if it passes Wikipedia's policies, or to nominate it for deletion if it doesn't.
 * 1) It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? Consider the controversy around some election provisions... we had an RfC on the topic early this year, but by the election we still didn't have closure on some open questions. Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
 * Note: there may possibly be some overlap with #7 and #8 in the general set but it's really a different tack. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
 * Getting consensus is very hard on Wikipedia. It's just a general fact of life that what you're getting even when you get consensus is not the true consensus of the however many registered users and countless anonymous IP editors, but the folks who know about the discussion (wherever it is), and feel strongly enough to comment. However, it's not a nose counting exercise either, a binary set, "yes" or "no". While consensus has problems scaling up to a project this big, I still would prefer that people realize that it is not black, nor white, but shades of grey that we need to see.
 * 1) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions/Pending Changes. What did you think of the trial? Should we ultimately implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?
 * My thoughts are that it's a net positive, and the trial showed that the encyclopedia would not come to an end over this. It was another tool that could be used to supplement the existing tools to improve Wikipedia's articles. I don't think that the community has irretrievably failed to come to consensus about this. The initial trial request (the feeler, so to speak) had little more then 50/50.. the second trial request had a good pluralities of support, and I think as the community sees the benefits of it, it will continue to grow. I'd be very leery of attempting to mandating this from the ArbCom bully pulpit, mind you.. this IS a fundamental change in how articles are handled (albeit I see it as one that could greatly benefit the encyclopedia)
 * 1) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from 2008 in that it's more extensive)
 * f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
 * g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from 2008)
 * Note: this ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
 * '''I support the POLICY of Pseudonymity with some exceptions. Hypocritical users can hide their conflict of interest with articles or areas of articles, while we punish those who are honest and forthright about their COI. There is no way we could change it even if we wanted to at this late point. However, if you DO deceive the encyclopedia and get caught, on your own head be it. I think that before anyone self-discloses information about themselves on Wikipedia, they should be aware, that once you do so, there's no "putting the genie back in the bottle". With very limited exceptions (minors, very specifically those under the age of 13, for COPPA reasons (and others) comes to mind).. once you've disclosed that information about yourself on Wikipedia, that information is out there. While I use a psuedonym, it's fairly well known that Hivemind, etcetera, have assigned a real name to that pseudonym, and I have never denied being that person. I think that linking a person's psuedonym to a real life name is not smething that should be regularly done, EXCEPT in certain, very limited exceptions (for example, if you believe that an editor is hiding a CoI by editing with a psuedonym).. and I think that you should do so in the least public way possible (private request to an administrator, or the Committee, before taking it public). I urge folks to read Risker's essay On privacy, confidentiality and discretion and realize that the WMF is not going to step in and fix things for you (in general). So in other words, YOU are responsible for the things YOU disclose on Wikipedia.  As for the off vs on-wiki argument, the way I see it is as follows: Is the outing designed to have an on-wiki effect? (drive off another editor, etcetera). If so, then it falls under our guidelines.
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
 * Note: this also ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
 * I do think that the Foundation should be more proactive in warning folks about the consequences of editing and identification on WP. As I said aboveRisker's essay above should be required. One of the steps I would encourage the Foundation to take is to serve those using WP to stalk editors a cease and desist notice. For editors with real life identity problems, I would see no problem with allowing a variation of a WP:CLEANSTART, but I'd make sure they know that editing in the same areas and in the same way may allow others to "connect the dots", so to speak, and to link the two accounts, and that we're not going to be their shield should they edit in such away to be recognized. My definition of Stalking is the use of Wikipedia to harass others. For example a stalker would deliberately post on pages they knew the victim would read, in an attempt to provoke a reaction. That is a problem. We must separate, however, "Stalking" versus "Wiki-Stalking"/ Reviewing a user's contributions for other problematic edits is nothing of the sort. There's a difference. Stalking IS a serious accusation, and I would hope that anyone who is making such statements has the information to back them up. I do not currently know of any users who I believe are over-playing the stalker card.. but I'm sure that there are.
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterized as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * Certain banned users, such as the "remarkably unwelcome" editor mentioned in this question, should be treated like I mentioned above. The sooner they get the message that their edits (good, bad, indifferent) is not going to stand, and that they depart the encyclopedia, the better off we are. We don't ban users such as the "remarkably unwelcome" one above and then say "Ok, some of your edits are ok, so we'll let them stand". That just encourages them to continue to push the boundaries and annoy others. I would suggest that if you think a banned user's edits are good, I'd come up with a way to re-say, re-word, or re-order the basic information behind it.. Again, my personal thoughts are that the community has decided to exclude this user from contributing, and we don't want to turn around and say "Well, we'll take time to filter out the trash, but any nuggets of good info we'll keep.
 * 1) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not (in each case)?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * I still stand by my thoughts from last year, that if there wasn't a "Wikipedia Review".. we'd have to make one. It's a necessary safety valve to blow off steam. While I have lowered my participation on WR (same name) in the past twelve months as a result of my increased work load (as an Arb), I still chime in from time to time. I was also a member of the now defunct site WikBack. I have considered making a blog under my RL name to discuss some of the things that an Arbitrator goes through, but I decided that any thing I could say, I should do so here on Wikipedia, and that anything I did say would be carefully combed for hidden agendas, twisted, or used on-wiki. Who knows.. some day when my time on Wiki is through, I might write a book. And if I do so, may I just say... I feel sorry for my editor. *laughs*
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * I still think that the term Vested Contributor is a red herring. Our job is to treat editors fairly and to minimize the disruption to the encyclopedia.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * Factionalism does exist on Wikipedia. Most of our big arbcom cases deal with factions of highly entrenched, highly partisan users. We can't tell our users who they can or can't agree with, or work with, but usually, when two opposing factions reach critical mass, things tend to get a wee bit out of control (see the Climate Change ArbCom). Unlike regular disputes, where usually we set up remedies that are very specifically targeted (User:X is restricted/topic banned/banned), we need to be more general (that users doing X behavior can be placed under restriction). Otherwise, what we're doing is skimming off the top (the worst of each side) and allowing a new set to grow in their place.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * '''(Rain Man mode on). Grey. Definitely Still Grey.(mode off). That means I'm through with the questions and can hit the save page button. Woohooo!
 * I do think that the Foundation should be more proactive in warning folks about the consequences of editing and identification on WP. As I said aboveRisker's essay above should be required. One of the steps I would encourage the Foundation to take is to serve those using WP to stalk editors a cease and desist notice. For editors with real life identity problems, I would see no problem with allowing a variation of a WP:CLEANSTART, but I'd make sure they know that editing in the same areas and in the same way may allow others to "connect the dots", so to speak, and to link the two accounts, and that we're not going to be their shield should they edit in such away to be recognized. My definition of Stalking is the use of Wikipedia to harass others. For example a stalker would deliberately post on pages they knew the victim would read, in an attempt to provoke a reaction. That is a problem. We must separate, however, "Stalking" versus "Wiki-Stalking"/ Reviewing a user's contributions for other problematic edits is nothing of the sort. There's a difference. Stalking IS a serious accusation, and I would hope that anyone who is making such statements has the information to back them up. I do not currently know of any users who I believe are over-playing the stalker card.. but I'm sure that there are.
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterized as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * Certain banned users, such as the "remarkably unwelcome" editor mentioned in this question, should be treated like I mentioned above. The sooner they get the message that their edits (good, bad, indifferent) is not going to stand, and that they depart the encyclopedia, the better off we are. We don't ban users such as the "remarkably unwelcome" one above and then say "Ok, some of your edits are ok, so we'll let them stand". That just encourages them to continue to push the boundaries and annoy others. I would suggest that if you think a banned user's edits are good, I'd come up with a way to re-say, re-word, or re-order the basic information behind it.. Again, my personal thoughts are that the community has decided to exclude this user from contributing, and we don't want to turn around and say "Well, we'll take time to filter out the trash, but any nuggets of good info we'll keep.
 * 1) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not (in each case)?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * I still stand by my thoughts from last year, that if there wasn't a "Wikipedia Review".. we'd have to make one. It's a necessary safety valve to blow off steam. While I have lowered my participation on WR (same name) in the past twelve months as a result of my increased work load (as an Arb), I still chime in from time to time. I was also a member of the now defunct site WikBack. I have considered making a blog under my RL name to discuss some of the things that an Arbitrator goes through, but I decided that any thing I could say, I should do so here on Wikipedia, and that anything I did say would be carefully combed for hidden agendas, twisted, or used on-wiki. Who knows.. some day when my time on Wiki is through, I might write a book. And if I do so, may I just say... I feel sorry for my editor. *laughs*
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * I still think that the term Vested Contributor is a red herring. Our job is to treat editors fairly and to minimize the disruption to the encyclopedia.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * Factionalism does exist on Wikipedia. Most of our big arbcom cases deal with factions of highly entrenched, highly partisan users. We can't tell our users who they can or can't agree with, or work with, but usually, when two opposing factions reach critical mass, things tend to get a wee bit out of control (see the Climate Change ArbCom). Unlike regular disputes, where usually we set up remedies that are very specifically targeted (User:X is restricted/topic banned/banned), we need to be more general (that users doing X behavior can be placed under restriction). Otherwise, what we're doing is skimming off the top (the worst of each side) and allowing a new set to grow in their place.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * '''(Rain Man mode on). Grey. Definitely Still Grey.(mode off). That means I'm through with the questions and can hit the save page button. Woohooo!
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * I still think that the term Vested Contributor is a red herring. Our job is to treat editors fairly and to minimize the disruption to the encyclopedia.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * Factionalism does exist on Wikipedia. Most of our big arbcom cases deal with factions of highly entrenched, highly partisan users. We can't tell our users who they can or can't agree with, or work with, but usually, when two opposing factions reach critical mass, things tend to get a wee bit out of control (see the Climate Change ArbCom). Unlike regular disputes, where usually we set up remedies that are very specifically targeted (User:X is restricted/topic banned/banned), we need to be more general (that users doing X behavior can be placed under restriction). Otherwise, what we're doing is skimming off the top (the worst of each side) and allowing a new set to grow in their place.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * '''(Rain Man mode on). Grey. Definitely Still Grey.(mode off). That means I'm through with the questions and can hit the save page button. Woohooo!
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * '''(Rain Man mode on). Grey. Definitely Still Grey.(mode off). That means I'm through with the questions and can hit the save page button. Woohooo!

Submitted 17:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Finally: Thanks for setting up this page, I hope all other candidates emulate you in this regard. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem Lar, it goes back to one of the pledges I made at the beginning of the year on my user page. I always want to be the type that people say "Well, I may not be able to persuade him, or get him to agree, but at least he was willing to discuss where he was coming from, and his thoughts." I hope that I lived up to this pledge over the past year. Thanks for the questions. SirFozzie (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom election questions from Rschen7754
Due to the changed format of this year's election questioning, I have removed all the questions that are covered by the general election questions (but please be sure to answer those thoroughly!) If you wouldn't mind answering the following brief questions that evaluate areas not covered by the general questions, that would be great!


 * 1) What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE  b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?
 * 2) Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?

Thank you. Rschen7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rschen: Thanks for the questions:

1A) Competence is something we should strive for. It is something that we should ask all editors for. No one wants to be the editor who has to go in and clean up an error-ridden, poorly spelled, badly formatted chunk of text from an article. However, we must also remember that no one arrives on Wikipedia knowing the minutiae of how to edit here. To use myself as an example, this was one of my first edits on Wikipedia. . Gee, can anyone spot the problem I made there? *grins*. However, we must not confuse "what people do not know" with "what people CAN not do or WILL not do. The first is correctable. To quote a show from when I was growing up, knowing, indeed is half the battle. However, people who cannot or will not learn how to do things right after being given every opportunity to learn how to do it.. there and then we have a problem.

1B) I'm of two minds here, really. Wikipedia is indeed not therapy, but we must not ever forget that it is an encyclopedia that is built, paragraph by paragraph, article by article, by people. Mortal, fallible people. People who will disagree, squabble and feel so strongly about what they're doing here that it spills over. That was my opinion with things like Right to Vanish, where it's really better to not drag someone back time and time again to face the slings and arrows of those who wished to castigate their flaws, actual or perceived. I think that I agree with it as stated, that the encyclopedia is bigger then any one editor. But it is that alternate interpretation that all in all, we're just another brick in the wall and that there's no humanity to it, that I think I have a problem with.

2) We must all remember that Wikipedia works on the consensus model. I have nothing but respect for those who work in the various Wikiprojects, and think in total that they are a massive net plus to the encyclopedia, as they have the ability to bootstrap up a whole area of articles. However, we must remember that WP:OWN applies to groups of editors as well as individual editors. If there's others who disagree with the guidelines as set up by various projects, stating "Well, the relevant WikiProject built the rules, so that's the way we're going to do it", is not going to fly. So, in short, they have a voice in the discussion, and a loud voice at that, but they must take care not to drown out the dissenting voices if there's good arguments behind them.

Thanks for your questions again, if you have any further follow up questions or want me to explain further, let me know. SirFozzie (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of question by Shooterwalker

 * Thanks for being clear with your answer! And good luck with the election. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Shooterwalker, please note that questions may be no more than 75 words. Future questions that exceed the limit will be edited back by the election coordinators. We ask that you observe the arrangements for keeping questions under control, for the voters' sake. You may take this matter up on the election talk page if you wish. Tony   (talk)  13:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the inconvenience. I thought that the standard would be enforced in spirit, not to the exact letter and number. I intend to ask questions to other candidates so I'll stay on top of it next time. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions/comments from Ncmvocalist and responses from SirFozzie
If it's not inconvenient for you, I'd like it if you could respond directly under each question/comment. Thank you in advance. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Q1. ''The mailing list existed for arbitrators to discuss matters which are sensitive or private. For example, if an user had to say something which could not be revealed in public, the only way to convey it is through (what should be) private & secure off-wiki communication ('OWC'). However, there have been several occasions where there is no specific 'need' for arbs to use OWC to discuss comments/votes amongst each other (in fact, such comments/votes could have been made on-wiki).'' Which parts of this statement are incorrect (if any) and why? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OWC
 * Actually, most of what you post above is based off an incorrect premise. The mailing list exists for arbitrators to discuss their job and duties. Contrary to what people may believe, the Arbitration Committee is not a great monolithic beast. We do not think the same, or believe the same. As the final arbiter of on-wiki disputes, posting our thoughts piecemeal, and getting into sometimes strenuous disagreement with each other is something that should not be done in public, for fear that it would actually inflame the dispute the Committee is resolving (and it lowers the chance of mid-case lobbying or for parties who are on the verge of possible sanctions to suddenly claim that arbitrators should be forcibly recused or disqualified).
 * The Committee DOES receive information from parties that cannot be posted publicly (for example, involving privacy-related information), and we will take that into consideration. However, if the members of the Committee think there is no good reason that the information should be private, we will direct the parties to post it publicly rather than accepting it as a private submission.
 * Keeping that decision on the mailing list (or on the separate arb-wiki, where sometimes proposed decisions are built by drafting arbitrators) allows us to focus our discussion on finding something that hopefully we can all sign off on that has the best chance to resolve the situation in front of the Committee. Does it always work? No, not always. Just like any other group of 18 editors, even after lengthy discussions, we don't always agree. But forcing this discussion unnecessarily on-wiki for reasons unknown (some would, perhaps uncharitably call it voyeurism, others would perhaps too charitably call it enforcing transparency) would harm the work that is the Committee's mandate. SirFozzie (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keeping that decision on the mailing list (or on the separate arb-wiki, where sometimes proposed decisions are built by drafting arbitrators) allows us to focus our discussion on finding something that hopefully we can all sign off on that has the best chance to resolve the situation in front of the Committee. Does it always work? No, not always. Just like any other group of 18 editors, even after lengthy discussions, we don't always agree. But forcing this discussion unnecessarily on-wiki for reasons unknown (some would, perhaps uncharitably call it voyeurism, others would perhaps too charitably call it enforcing transparency) would harm the work that is the Committee's mandate. SirFozzie (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keeping that decision on the mailing list (or on the separate arb-wiki, where sometimes proposed decisions are built by drafting arbitrators) allows us to focus our discussion on finding something that hopefully we can all sign off on that has the best chance to resolve the situation in front of the Committee. Does it always work? No, not always. Just like any other group of 18 editors, even after lengthy discussions, we don't always agree. But forcing this discussion unnecessarily on-wiki for reasons unknown (some would, perhaps uncharitably call it voyeurism, others would perhaps too charitably call it enforcing transparency) would harm the work that is the Committee's mandate. SirFozzie (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of question by Ipsign
Thanks, but it answers a bit different question. I did not ask how skeptical you are, I've asked are you willing to perform analysis. In other words: can it happen that you refuse analysis of a certain case based on "five pillars" (even if asked explicitly by one of the parties), referring to existing policy (which is not "five pillars") instead? Also note that I did not ask if WP:IAR should always have precedence (which is obviously not a correct question without specific case). Ipsign (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Sven Manguard
I decided to ask these questions after reflecting on an hour long conversation over the IRC with an editor that I hold in very high regard. I intermixed her concerns with my own concerns to form this short list of general questions. Please answer them truthfully, and draw upon whatever experiences or knowledge you possess. I apologize in advance for all the questions being compound questions. Thanks in advance, sincerely, Sven Manguard  Talk.


 * 1) What is the greatest threat to the long term survivability or viability of Wikipedia? If the threat is currently affecting Wikipedia, what actions can be done to limit it? If the the threat is not yet affecting the project, what actions can be taken to keep it that way? What is the overall health of the project today?
 * A.The greatest threat, long term? Falling under a "critical mass" of editors needed to maintain the encyclopedia in all its facets. We must keep the environment welcoming to new editors, and realize that 90% of the people who were big contributors five years ago have greatly reduced or even completely stopped contributing to Wikipedia. I think the health of the project is GENERALLY good, but has some areas where it could improve.
 * 1) What are the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of the project? What processes do we do well, and what processes fail? What content areas do we excel at and where do we need to improve?
 * A.The greatest strength is that the diverse knowledge of the people who contribute to Wikipedia. I have the areas where I'm interested (sports-related, and especially those folks who would be considered "characters", and some current-event like stuff with regards to sporting events, such as the Olympics. I'll see an interesting story on TV or read a book about it, and I can't resist checking the Wikipedia article about it.) But if you asked me to add to some article about quantum mechanics, I'd probably have that glazed over "Huh.. wha?" look in my eyes. Any such article that I wrote would be... um.. less useful then it could be. But then there are other users, who are very knowledgeable in that topic area, and can probably write such an article that even a layman like me can understand the very basics of the area. The greatest weakness? I'd say it's the fact that having a Wikipedia article reflect a certain point of view is a near-imperative for people who feel strongly about an area. Alexa lists Wikipedia as the 7th highest ranking website that they track. Think of how many millions of unique visitors that is. For a lot of folks, that becomes an irresistible temptation either to vandalize it, or to slant the articles to make one side of a dispute (be it science-related, politics-related, or nationalist-related) be presented more sympathetically.
 * 1) What is your view on the current level of participation in Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have enough active contributors today? Does it have too many?
 * A. I don't think we can ever have too many active contributors (as long as they follow the basics of the five pillars, etcetera). I have concerns that certain topic areas is the "same old faces in the same old ways", but we'll have to see how that goes.
 * 1) Does Wikipedia do a good job at retaining its active contributors? What strengths and weaknesses within the project can you point to that affect retention? Are recent high profile burnouts indicative of a problem within the project or are they unfortunate but isolated events?
 * A. Burnout itself is not something we can ever eliminate. There's a saying that "you get out what you put in". That's true for both the good (the feeling that you've improved the encyclopedia) and the bad (the utter stress and frustration that high level disputes cause). I'm going to use myself as an example. I became an admin in June 2007. Two months later I was part of one of the largest Omnibus cases that the encyclopedia had seen up until that point. The Troubles. I never pulled myself out of dealing with high-stress, high visibility areas, (the next year, the Mantanmoreland arbitration case). Come March 2009. I had unrelated health issues which just exacerbated the whole thing. I had never pulled myself out to decompress, and finally, I burned out. I submitted my resignation as an administrator, and didn't edit the encyclopedia for a while. I was lucky, I had good friends (and even a couple people I had considered "foes" to that point, who kept me grounded and left me a lifeline here. I learned from what happened. There are times now where the last thing I should be doing is editing the encyclopedia, so I don't. The best way to reduce burnout is to have friends who will tell you when you're burning out and suggest a break, or a new topic area.
 * 1) Do you believe that the project should prioritize on improving existing content or creating new content. Is there an ideal ratio of creation:improvement? For the purposes of this question, assume that you have complete control over where the community as a whole focuses their efforts. This is, of course, a hypothetical situation.
 * A. I don't think there's any such ratio. People should work with what they feel comfortable and happy doing. The only caveat I'd like to put in is that I know that the backlog of unsourced BLP articles is reduced, but it's still there. I would love to see a project devoted to classifying these articles and then deleting or updating/sourcing them as needed.
 * 1) Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
 * A. While IP editing has more then its fair share of issues, and has become more and more of a problem (due to how easy it is to vandalize), I tend to think IP Editing is a NET positive, as it is a primary way to "hook" new editors.
 * 1) If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
 * A. At this moment? I think it's trying to take a few pieces out of the drama-engine that sometimes permeates our dispute resolution. More discussion on possible controversial actions, less "cowboy" actions. I'd prefer our admins (and those who criticize our admins) to be more Harry Stone and less Dirty Harry. But that's just me, and my thoughts at the moment.

Thanks for the questions Sven, I hope I've answered them sufficiently for you? SirFozzie (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from EdChem
1. In this comment, Arbitrator Roger Davies was responding to criticisms of the findings of fact in the recent Climate Change case. He wrote that: "Their purpose is not to build a watertight case against someone, nor to convince the sanctioned editor of the errors of his/her ways, but to give other arbitrators a flavour of the problem." Do you agree with this comment? To what extent should Findings of Fact be persuasive of editors watching a case, the editors directly involved, and the non-drafting Arbitrators? Is it sufficient for non-drafting Arbitrators to base their views primarily on the drafted Findings? Please note, the intended focus of this question is not the specific Findings about which Roger was being criticised but rather the general issue of your view of the purpose of Findings of Fact.

2. There have been situations during cases where groups of editors have been calling for, or even pleading for, clarification of arbitrators' views. Some examples include: I could list other examples, but these are sufficient (I believe) to illustrate my questions, which are: how should / do arbitrators go about handling the need to reveal information that is in the community's interests to know as opposed to information that is instead only of interest to the community. How would you respond to the idea of a mechanism by which questions could be posed to the committee where arbitrators would be obligated to provide a direct and timely response?
 * In Mantanmoreland, when it was unclear whether statistical evidence was persuasive, and whether further evidence would have been useful.
 * In Climate Change, when it was unclear whether arbitrators recognised the flaw in the statements relating to Scibaby false positives.
 * In Matthew Hoffman, when it was unclear how arbitrators viewed the controversial actions of some of their colleagues.
 * In the OrangeMarlin incident, where a desire to provide a unified ArbCom position left the community unclear on the views of individual arbitrators.

3. In the fallout from the Randy outing accusations and the subsequent AUSC report, Giano was blocked by Coren and quickly unblocked by John Vandenberg. In the RfAr that followed, JV wrote "As other members of the Committee know, there have been prior incidents of Coren taking action without strong Committee backing. It is my opinion that this most recent block of Giano was another such example of poor judgment on Coren's part." and also that "Coren wisely does not want to name me as part of this "spat", and would like us all to disregard the context. That is not going to happen folks." This clearly adds to the perception that ArbCom closes ranks to protect its own. Have there been situations (to do with the Randy incident or otherwise) where you felt that the community had a right or need to know something, but that has not been disclosed for reasons of protecting an individual arbitrator or ArbCom as an institution? How important is protecting the reputation of ArbCom itself?

4. Please outline what case-related actions are acceptable for a recused arbitrator to take.


 * 1.I tend to take the opinion Principles and Findings of Fact are the "base" for the remedies. To use a (probably horrible) analogy, the principles are the latticework (What Wikipedia SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be) the findings of fact are the roots (The way things WERE), and the remedies, the trunk and its branches (the way things are going to be going forward). The findings of fact do not have to be exhaustive, but enough to give the people viewing the page (the fellow arbitrators, the parties, and any interested onlookers) the idea of what the area was like. In a lot of long and exhaustive cases, trying to provide a full record would be enough to put anyone who reads it to sleep. Also, it opens things to nitpicking "In this tenth Battleground diff you provided, I was only semi-uncivil and not fully uncivil and therefore you should immediately drop all findings and remedies against me!" (never mind the other nine were dead-on-target.)


 * 2. Well, it's not a binding method, but there's already two methods to gather the information. It's called talk pages and private communication (email/IRC for example). Let me provide an example, from one of the cases you mention. After the Mantanmoreland proposed decision, if you see my posts, to say I was not happy with the Committee would probably be an Understatement of the Year candidate. I later had the chance to speak privately with two of the arbitrators who were then on the Committee (including Newyorkbrad, who was the primary drafter for that case). When the conversation started, I said a lot of things that I later regretted due to anger, and frustration. To their everlasting credit, they rode out the storm of my anger, and we had a productive discussion on where the Committee was trying to come from, and what they had considered when writing the case. At the end, I still didn't agree with them (and felt I was vindicated by further events), but at least they had taken the edge off the frustration and anger that I felt. I try to follow that example in my actions as an arbitrator. I'm all for "Prime Minister's Questions" type question and answer session, but wonder how to avoid it turning into "re-fight old battles and abuse the Arbitrators Time".


 * 3. There was a couple incidents where I wanted to provide a follow up report to what people had asked of the committee, but was unable to because of the privacy policy (for example, a user identifying as under age and posting images... that was a can of worms there). But I don't see a tendency for ArbCom to protect their own. What we DO do is hash out our disagreements and problems privately (either on the list or via private email), in the interests of not causing on-Wiki drama. For example, early this year, myself and another arbitrator got into a heated dispute over a motion the Committee was working on, and it required several off-list emails to try to smooth things out. I tend to think that's why people think ArbCom "closes ranks". They just see the (mostly) unified face that the Committee presents, and not the differences and disagreements we have privately.


 * 4. Recused arbs are just like any other editors in a topic area. For example, in CC (which I think is the gist of your question).. I posted statements and comments, clearly noting at all times that I was a recused arbitrator, and I had no say in the decision that was posted by various members of the Committee.

Thanks for your questions, Ed. SirFozzie (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up questions from Carcharoth
A few follow-up questions, some related to your answers to the existing questions:
 * In your answer to general question 1, you mention that you worked with other arbitrators to draft cases. Could you say how the workload was shared with your co-drafter, and how much communication there was with your co-drafter during the drafting of the proposed decision? Would you consider drafting a case 'solo', or do you think drafting teams of two (or three?) are the way to go? Update: I've asked a similar question of Newyorkbrad, and in particular there seems to be some confusion over who was the primary drafter of the Alastair Haines 2 case - could you clarify things here? 02:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: It depends. On Stevertigo, Kirill really ran with the ball, and I was just the guy following things up with a couple nits there, some of which got moved into the proposed decision. Regarding the confusion with Alastair Haines 2, it's because it was a team of "primaries", so to speak. started as the drafting arbitrator, Brad was freed up after the Gibraltar case finished. With Brad, when he came on board, we were in contact fairly frequently (I'd say 15-20 emails, and a couple quick online chats) over the next four day with what we were thinking, and our concerns as the case devolved. Brad eventually took the shell of the proposed decision I had wrote up previously (which were focused on all issues), and focused it to the area in which it was eventually decided (the ongoing use of legal and quasi-legal threats). With the concurrence of myself and the other members of the Committee, that was the decision that was posted on-wiki. Again, it was a real team effort, and personally, I think working with Brad was very productive and eye-opening. I think a two-three arbitrator team is good as you can bounce ideas off of.. "Do you think editor X would respond well to a lesser sanction then a topic/site ban?" That allows us to target the remedies appropriately, and can save time as we get the general range of opinions out there.


 * In your answer to general question 8, you mention: "a weekly email identifying open/active issues". This brought a smile to my face, as I used to do that a lot as well, and I'm glad you started doing that. In your opinion, though, how successful is that approach in getting other arbitrators to attend to their duties, and how far can that approach be pushed given that all arbitrators are volunteers, but also noting that parties and others are waiting patiently (and sometimes not so patiently) for decisions? Should there be a queuing system to ensure things get dealt with in order, or a triage system used to assign priorities and handlers for particular issues?
 * A: Well, it worked in the emails I sent, we got rid of what was a growing backlog, and removed several stale cases. I think that it can't be done too constantly or too stridently.. People don't mind (that much) being reminded that there's work to do, but they don't like being nagged or people telling them too stridently. I think weekly emails are fine, especially when/if things are piling up, just to make sure things don't "slip through the cracks", so to speak.


 * In your answer to ScottyBerg, you say: "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)." I would agree with you here, but would you say such injunctions should be put in place early, and if this is not done, how difficult is it to vote such an injunction through mid-way through a case when it is not clear how much longer the case will be open for? What would you do if the battleground shifted to the parties fighting over the wording of the injunctions?
 * A: A lot depends on where we are in the case, and how bad the ongoing wars are. If it's not too bad, we may just be able to get by with a request to the clerks to remind the parties of the conduct expected of people at arbitration. In areas where the edit wars are frequent, and the sniping on arb-related pages are too great, I think quick and dirty can suffice.. while removing a significant amount of editors from the topic area is necessarily disruptive to the topic area, at least it allows us to "freeze" the situation, and not have to deal with ongoing behavioral issues.


 * In one of your answers to Lar, you said: "some day when my time on Wiki is through, I might write a book". Does this refer to arbitration, or just wiki-stuff in general? I've had similar thoughts myself (and utterly failed to maintain the page in my userspace that was meant to be something like an arbitrator's diary), but I have to ask if you are serious here, and if you are, should there be further discussion of what is acceptable for those who might want to decompress in this fashion, and what should and should not be published?
 * A: It was mostly facetious. I doubt anyone would want to read what I would have to say, especially considering that a lot of what I know, I can't say anything about (due to the privileged nature of the conversations, and Wikipedia's privacy policies). I was more making fun of the amount of words I tend to write, and the fact that in general I wasn't hesitant to speak up about things. Honestly, I don't think many people want to read the day-in and day-out happenings of anyone on Wikipedia. "August 21st, 2010: Reverted vandal who called me a no-good-son-of-a-bitch on my talk page". Exciting stuff, huh? Doesn't exactly scream best-seller to me. I wouldn't suggest anyone really go into editing Wikipedia looking for material to launch a literary career.


 * You were appointed to a one-year term last year. Would you consider taking up another one-year term if elected (rather than 2 years)? How do you think being an arbitrator for only one year and then having to run in another election if you chose to do so, plays out in practice (I believe the only other arbitrator to do this so far has been Coren, who was appointed to a further two years from December 2009)? Did filling a one-year term impact the way you approached the role of being an arbitrator throughout the past year?
 * A: If that's the voters and Jimbo's decision, sure, I'd accept it. I think the only terms on offer in this election are two-years, so I'm not sure it'd happen. I'd say I can see how it works in practice can be somewhat problematic. If the goal of being an arbitrator is to stay in that role indefinitely, the longer the term, the better. There's a better chance that any power blocs you anger or mistakes you make will be forgotten by the time you're up for election. In my case, I'm not going to run again (I think three years in a row is enough for me personally, and think that it's good in general for new blood to rotate in every so often to keep things from stultifying..), so be it one or two years, this will be my final term as an Arbitrator. Call it Fozzie's term limits, I guess :)


 * In terms of sharing the workload, how important do you think it is that candidates and sitting arbitrators keep their colleagues informed about potential absences? (In passing, your answer to Sven Manguard on dealing with burnout was excellent.)
 * A: I'd say pretty important. A lot of the work we do on-wiki is predicated on people being active. If the majority needed for a proposed decision is, say 10 (assuming we have a full committee of 18, that's what the committee is projected out to be, although our number of 15 got reduced fairly quickly), Arb X is in the Carribean, Arb Y is buried under tons of work, and no one's heard from Arb Z in two weeks, instead of the base majority, you need a near super-majority (10 out of 15). Also in a lot of areas, such as AUSC, with the limited amount of people (3 arbs and 3 Community), if two-three members drop off without a word (temporarily or permanently), basically, you're in gridlock, and nothing can be done.

Thanks for standing as a candidate in these elections, and thanks for taking the time to answer these questions. Carcharoth (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: No problem, Carcharoth, and thanks for the chance to explain myself. :) SirFozzie (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Offliner's question

 * Does this mean that, when deciding whether and how to sanction an editor, you will prefer to mostly (or even solely?) base your decision on the editor's individual behaviour, rather than on the situation in the general "battleground"? Offliner (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: Yes, that's correct. When I speak of the need to balance scales, I'm not talking about numerically on either side of a dispute, it's to match findings and remedies to behavior. SirFozzie (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from Offliner
Do you believe the nationalities of Wikipedia's editors are fairly represented in the current ArbCom? Could you please reveal your own nationality? If you do not wish to reveal your exact nationality, could you at least state whether you are from an anglophone country? Offliner (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Offliner, I think most of the Committee comes from one of three countries. The US, Canada and England. This is to at least be partially expected, as I would say a pretty big group of Wikipedia's editors would fall into one of those three categories. I am American myself. SirFozzie (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)