This page is for asking a question of a candidate. Editors who are eligible to vote may ask a question, via one of the following methods:
Guidance for candidates: Candidates are requested to provide their responses before voting starts on 1 December. They are reminded that voters may support or oppose based on which questions are responded to as well as the responses themselves. Candidates are welcome to refuse to answer a question if they feel uncomfortable doing so; if a question is very similar to another, candidates are welcome to simply refer the editor to their response to the similar question. |
(1) Thank you for running, and good luck with your candidacy. What do you find to be the most important characteristic of a successful arbitrator on Wikipedia? This can be either a historic trait seen in one or more of the 53 arbitrators who have served since 2004, or an ideal trait that you would like to see in future arbitrators. ( UltraExactZZ)
(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. ( Tony1)
(3) Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:
(4) As an arbitrator you will find that most of your work is done away from enwiki, either on mailing lists or on the private Arbitration wiki. How will you cope with the tension between the community desire for openness and the need for confidentiality for personal information about parties to arbitration decisions? ( Sam Blacketer)
(5) Sociologists have spotted that individual members of groups of people sometimes suppress independent and dissenting thoughts which they think may be unpopular with the other group members. As the Arbitration Committee depends on the cohesion of its members, and has to take controversial decisions, do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid this approach of ' groupthink'? If so, what steps would you take? ( Sam Blacketer)
(6) I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator? ( Juliancolton)
(7) Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic to you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you actually read? ( Tznkai)
(8) An arbitrator who is a participant in a case, and thus recused from acting in his or her official capacity, still retains access to confidential materials (mailing list posts, the ArbCom wiki, etc). Is her or his reading these materials acceptable? What (if any) use of these materials by the recused arbitrator is acceptable, and what safeguards (if any) are needed to prevent inappropriate usage? I am thinking (for example) about actions like making case-related comments on the ArbCom list, emailing editors who have submitted private evidence, and posting additional evidence / comments on wiki relevant to concerns expressed privately by the other committee members. Should inappropriate usage be dealt with publicly on wiki, or privately between ArbCom members? ( EdChem)
Answered: SirFozzie ( talk) 03:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
(9) Should the process of (a) reviewing admin actions that may have breached policy, and (b) desysopping, remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo), or would you prefer that a community-based process also perform these roles? ( LessHeard vanU)
(10) Over the past year Arbcom has desysopped a number of admins. Generally do you think Arbcom has (a) not desysopped enough (b) got it about right (c) desysopped too much over this period? Why? ( Davewild)
(11) Do you support or oppose the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval? ( Finn Casey)
(12) Would you consider taking a case where it is clear that an admin has lost community trust, but there has been no RfC or attempts to resolve the issue? ( Majorly)
(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. ( NuclearWarfare)
(14) If it's discovered that an admin is a sock of a banned user, and that some users (including, but not only, admins) who had voted in Example's RFA knew this at the time, what measures should be taken against those voters? ( Od Mishehu)
(15) Over the past year Arbcom has made a few change in how it runs, such as introducing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee and establishing the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. What changes (if any) would you make in how the Arbitration Committee works? ( Davewild) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(16) In last year's election one of the successful candidates said in answer to a question "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. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generally be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree or disagree, and why? ( Davewild)
(17) ArbCom cases divert vast amounts of editor time and goodwill into often pointless arguments, causing constructive editors to feel oppressed and disillusioned, and leading to "remedies" that are in fact retributive punishments (often ill-targeted) that fail to remedy any real problems. Do you agree, and what would you do about it? ( Kotniski)
(18) Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why? How important is the ArbCom dispute resolution process? ( Camaron/ Majorly)
(19) A number editors in the community have expressed concern that the Arbitration Committee is becoming too powerful and expansive in response to some committee actions including the creation of the Advisory Council on Project Development and BLP special enforcement. Do you agree with them? How will you deal with such concerns if you are successfully elected to the committee? ( Camaron)
(20) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made any direct content rulings, i.e., how an article should read in the event of a dispute. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Should it sanction users for repeated content policy violations, even if there is no record of repeated conduct policy violations? Can 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? ( Heimstern)
(20-Supplemental) Hi, SirFozzie. After seeing your answer to the first question I wrote here, particularly the part about how the only case you knew in which AC had tried to set up discussions was the Ireland naming dispute, I wanted to point you to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia, which was also initiated by the Committee. Would it be possible for you to comment on the the possibility of AC using further solutions similar to this? It's information I'd need to be able to decide on my vote. (I know, more questions...) For my purposes, it's fine if you just write it here; you only need bother putting it at your question page if you think it's good for others to see it too. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional question.. SirFozzie ( talk) 07:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
(21) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: In my opinion and many others', the worst problem to plague Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how? ( Heimstern)
(22) Civility: How and when to enforce civility restrictions remains controversial. How admins should enforce it is largely outside the scope of this election, so I ask you this: To what extent and how should ArbCom enforce civility? Is incivility grounds for desysopping? Banning? Are civility restrictions a good idea? To what extent is incivility mitigated by circumstances such as baiting or repeated content abuses (POV pushing, original research etc.) by others? ( Heimstern)
(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? ( Offliner)
(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? ( Majorly)
(25) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's decision to set up Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development earlier this summer? If you were one of the founding members of the advisory council, please explain why you accepted the invitation to join the committee. ( NuclearWarfare)
(26) As of May 2009, only 5 of the 16 Arbitrators had made more than 500 edits to the mainspace in the past calendar year. Several arbitrators' past 500 edits stretched back over 12 months. [2] Considering this, do you feel that the Arbitration Committee is qualified to judge conduct disputes that overlap heavily with content disputes? Please elaborate. ( NuclearWarfare)
(section answered by SirFozzie at SirFozzie ( talk) 09:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC))
(27) Do you agree with the committee's decision to reban the_undertow/Law (see motion here)? Would you have handled the situation differently? ( Jake Wartenberg)
(28) Why do you think the committee chose to desysop Jennavecia but not Jayron32 (the motion to desysop Jennavecia was passing with all arbitrators having voted when Jennavecia resigned, the motion to desysop Jayron32 had been and was rejected; see the previous link)? How would you have voted? ( Jake Wartenberg)
(29) Iridescent and MZMcBride have both publicly admitted that they knew that Law was the_undertow at the time of Law's RfA. While MZMcBride did not vote in Law's RfA, Iridescent did. Noting that Iridescent is currently a user who has the ability to request the admin bit back at WP:BN at any time and that MZMcBride is currently a sysop, what do you think, if anything, should the Arbitration Committee have done? ( Jake Wartenberg)
(30) Out of all the cases handled by the Arbitration Committee in 2009, which one(s) do you think the committee as a whole handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choice(s). ( Camaron)
(31) For the purpose of the following five questions, please assume the principles in question are directly relevant to the facts of the case that you are deciding as an arbitrator. Would you support or oppose these principles as written should they be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? (To keep the amount of time required to respond to these examples to an absolute minimum, I personally would consider one or two sentences to be ample reasoning for the "why" part of this question; that kind of statement length is akin to many of the Arbitrator votes on the proposed decision pages of a case.) ( Daniel)
(i) "Private correspondence", July 2007
(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007
(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008
(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008
(v) "Outing", June 2009
(32) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's recent decision to appoint MBisanz as a fourth community member – or rather, alternate member with full access and possible voting rights – to the Audit Subcommittee after an election which was to elect three members to the subcommittee? ( NuclearWarfare)
Full answers
SirFozzie (
talk) 08:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
(33) Originally RfARs were named in the style of "Party X v. Party Y", in line with the idea of two groups in opposition to each other (eg. User:Guanaco versus User:Lir). Later it was changed to naming an individual user (eg. Husnock). Now cases get random names like Highways 2. What naming convention do you believe is the appropriate one for ArbCom to use in designating case names? Under what circumstances should a case name be changed after opening, such as in A/R/Zeraeph? ( MBisanz)
(34) Do you feel that the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach is correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? ( NuclearWarfare)
(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? ( Hipocrite)
(36) One issue on which arbitrators (and others participating in cases) frequently disagree is how "strict" versus "lenient" the committee should be toward users who misbehave and need to be sanctioned. Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, as a general matter in the types of cases that tend to lead to split votes among the arbitrators, do you think you would side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or those who vote for a greater number of bans and desysoppings? Generally, in a given case what factors might lead you to vote for (a) a less severe sanction, or for (b) a long-term ban or a desysopping? ( Newyorkbrad)
Good luck! Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your questions. SirFozzie ( talk) 22:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
These questions are being asked of all candidates.
Wikipedia has gone from being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but only successfully if they're aware of a morass of overlapping policies, recommendations, suggestions, procedures, committees, and teams". I think some of the questions you're being asked during your trek towards serving on the Arbitration Committee demonstrate the surprising complexity of the systems that are in place.
My questions surround your role in that bureaucracy, and your ability to make changes for the better. Thank you for entertaining them, and good luck with your candidacy. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 16:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your questions! SirFozzie ( talk) 09:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for running, and best of luck with your candidacy. In your statement, you mention that ArbCom "can highlight areas where Wikipedia's policies are unclear, contradictory or can be improved." This leads me to ask two questions. -- Bfigura ( talk) 21:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your question! SirFozzie ( talk) 06:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2008, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support. Please note that if you are not an administrator, have not been here for a substantial length of time, or have a statement that is not written seriously, this will drastically affect your score.
The first 10 questions are short answer questions. The next question determines your ability to go through evidence. The last question is a bit open-ended.
Thank you. Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your questions :) SirFozzie ( talk) 04:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Last year you were a candidate for the Arbitration Committee, gaining 154 Support votes but 103 Oppose votes. There were numreous claims of inciting drama, drama mongering, and "a desire to further engage in drama than work towards solving it." [3]
Drama mongering almost completely imploded the Arbitration Committee last year. Given your track record and your numerous instances where you seemingly prolonged drama, is there any reason for Wikipedia editors to believe that you will be an objective arbitrator that will not do much more harm than good to this committee and the project as a whole?
Thank you for the question: SirFozzie ( talk) 06:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question related to arbitration enforcement. Recently, another administrator undid one of my arbitration enforcement blocks without discussion, which ArbCom prohibited in 2008. Because a reblock by me would have been wheel-warring, I requested arbitral intervention at [4]. While the Committee appeared to agree that the enforcement was correct and the unblock was wrong, they did not seem inclined to do anything about it for 15 days until the case became moot because the admin was desysopped for unrelated reasons. This has led me to cease AE activity, because I view this non-reaction as a sign that the current ArbCom is not very interested in having its decisions actually enforced. As an arbitrator, what would you have done or advised in this situation? Thanks, Sandstein 06:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Note to readers: This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2009/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and modified to fit changes in circumstance.
Note 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. For those of you that ran last year, feel free to cut and paste last year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded.
These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your questions, Lar, and I'm sure the doctor who will be treating my carpal tunnel syndrome from answering these questions thanks you too! SirFozzie ( talk) 06:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer for what I know is a thankless, exhausting, nerve-wracking, emotionally draining, and real-life-affecting position here in EnWiki. For your courage alone, I salute you. I apologize if these questions replicate any above. If they do, please feel free to cut-and-paste your response here. Also, for any question with subquestions, please feel free to answer bthe subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi ( talk) 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts are that generally, the status of administrator desysopping on En.Wiki is good. Not EVERY de-sysop is clear cut and dried. There are some times where I think a de-sysop should have been done, and there are cases when a desysop was done that I wasn't 100% behind, but I can't think of any absolutely no-doubt screwups that ArbCom has made. As I said above, administrators must be allowed to make difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions (in some areas, if you enrage only HALF of the people in an area with a use of your administrator tools, you're lucky), so I do not support "One-size-fits-all" community de-adminning. I do support Request for Recall (and have put myself on it, despite the contentious areas I have worked in, through two unsuccessful requests). Emergency Desysops should never be permanent de-sysops.. until such time a formal motion and/or case can happen.
As for the voluntary relinquishment of tools (in good standing), and the reacquiring of them, I will say that I have used them myself. Over the last few months, a combination of personal health issues and family health issues required that my time was very limited on WP. So, I requested my tools be removed, as I felt that I could not do the duties of an administrator at that time. I am very glad to say that the health issues have been resolved satisfactorily, and I returned to WP a few months later. I do think that "inactive admins" should relinquish their tools, and then if there's no issues surrounding them when they become active again, be able to re-acquire the mop.
Civility is.. well, it's like the old judicial line about obscenity. "I know it when I see it". It can be the canary in the coal mine to indicate when people can no longer seek consensus with each other.. it becomes about each others conduct rather then the content. Usually, it's obvious when one or both sides are letting their civility slip... sometimes I think that ArbCom cases last that long because it shows, for the whole world to see who can and cannot deal with each other.. if you can't maintain a good public face while the magnifying glass of an ArbCom case (when you absolutely need to be on your best behavior), then what hope do we have that you can act appropriately without that light being shined on you..
I've answered most of those questions regarding psuedonymity and anonymity elsewhere.. but I think ArbCom's role is not to adjust those rights, but to enforce Wikipedia's policies.
My two areas are: Finding ways to improve Wikipedia's trust-worthiness and the factual information inside it. I'm harsher then most on editors whose first edits to Wikipedia are childish, immature vandalism (especially the sneaky kind, like changing one word to be a slur on them, and hiding it in an otherwise not so bad edit), I see that, and I wonder how we can ever trust that user to not get bored and do it again for kicks. Article Vandalism is bad enough when it's mere factual information, but when it's about PEOPLE.. especially living people, it can do immesurable harm. I would love to see ArbCom's members views on some of the things Lar and others have posted. ArbCom can't create this policy on their own.. but I think that we can lead the vanguard on it.
The other area is generally restoring trust and openness to Arbcom's proceedings. I've seen comments by some that indicate that their faith in this area has been damaged severely, almost irreparibly. For example, the recent issue where ArbCom decided that in case of a close Audit Subcommittee election, they would allow for the position of an alternate to be created, which did happen. There would have been much less of a problem had this motion been announced publicly.. when ArbCom announced it ex post facto, many users had the feeling that ArbCom was making up the rules as they went.. and their trust in ArbCom was damaged. I think any private motion that ArbCom passes privately should be posted publicly in a timely manner (with certain exceptions, for example, if private information would be divulged).
Thanks for your questions! SirFozzie ( talk) 07:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
It is important that arbitrators be engaged, whether that is answering emails (sometimes, an answer is not possible, but the email/post should at least be acknowledged). I think that arbitrators posting on the talk page CAN be useful at times, but not always.
And I do understand how folks can believe that being in front of ArbCom can be intensely stressful. I've been there and done that. I've had some ups and downs with cases in front of ArbCom. Perhaps, streamlining the case and having all evidence posted publicly within 30-45 days, and then closing the evidence page would be an idea worth considering. I'm not necessarily advocating for the idea myself, but it's ideas like that we should be taking a look at to consider if it's useful.
With regards to the essay.. my thoughts are that it must be a careful weighing of the value that users bring versus the disruption that they bring, and considering the following.. "Would alternate restrictions remove the disruption and keep the value?" If the disruption outweighs the value, and alternate restrictions would not at least balance the scales, then it would be more needed to use full sanctions.
With regards to your added question, I can understand how positive reinforcement can help as well, but I think it should be for exceptional cases, and not just a rubber stamp "But we think he's a jolly good fellow" type platitudes.
Thanks for your questions! SirFozzie ( talk) 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC) (Updated: SirFozzie ( talk) 19:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC))
Do you use any of the wikimedia related IRC channels? If you do, will you please permit any logs of your conversations to be posted, in full? Thanks.
Thank you for your question, however. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Have you read War and Peace?
Jimbo made a policy statement about paid editing [5]. What is your position on Jimbo's continuing (not past) role on policy making? Is paid editing against policy? (I like short answers; I hope you like short questions) Smallbones ( talk) 22:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I would recuse myself if I cannot fairly decide the merits of an issue, or there is the appearance that I could not fairly decide the merits of an issue. For an example, if there's a Troubles 2 case, and I'm on ArbCom, there is no doubt that my past efforts in that area would nearly mandate that if I participated, it would be as an administrator who's worked on the area, and thus I would recuse. Thanks for the question, Boris SirFozzie ( talk) 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
My goal is to do my best to fully explain my votes on any proposed decision that is before arbcom, as well as to explain the tenets of any proposed decision I write at the time I post them.
I also know the danger of judging a book by its cover.. generally in an ArbCom case, ArbCom members who have a strong opinion about an editor (such as that would cause the pre-judging you fear), should recuse. I pledge to uphold that.
Thanks for your questions! SirFozzie ( talk) 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
SirFozzie
|
This page is for asking a question of a candidate. Editors who are eligible to vote may ask a question, via one of the following methods:
Guidance for candidates: Candidates are requested to provide their responses before voting starts on 1 December. They are reminded that voters may support or oppose based on which questions are responded to as well as the responses themselves. Candidates are welcome to refuse to answer a question if they feel uncomfortable doing so; if a question is very similar to another, candidates are welcome to simply refer the editor to their response to the similar question. |
(1) Thank you for running, and good luck with your candidacy. What do you find to be the most important characteristic of a successful arbitrator on Wikipedia? This can be either a historic trait seen in one or more of the 53 arbitrators who have served since 2004, or an ideal trait that you would like to see in future arbitrators. ( UltraExactZZ)
(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. ( Tony1)
(3) Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:
(4) As an arbitrator you will find that most of your work is done away from enwiki, either on mailing lists or on the private Arbitration wiki. How will you cope with the tension between the community desire for openness and the need for confidentiality for personal information about parties to arbitration decisions? ( Sam Blacketer)
(5) Sociologists have spotted that individual members of groups of people sometimes suppress independent and dissenting thoughts which they think may be unpopular with the other group members. As the Arbitration Committee depends on the cohesion of its members, and has to take controversial decisions, do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid this approach of ' groupthink'? If so, what steps would you take? ( Sam Blacketer)
(6) I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator? ( Juliancolton)
(7) Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic to you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you actually read? ( Tznkai)
(8) An arbitrator who is a participant in a case, and thus recused from acting in his or her official capacity, still retains access to confidential materials (mailing list posts, the ArbCom wiki, etc). Is her or his reading these materials acceptable? What (if any) use of these materials by the recused arbitrator is acceptable, and what safeguards (if any) are needed to prevent inappropriate usage? I am thinking (for example) about actions like making case-related comments on the ArbCom list, emailing editors who have submitted private evidence, and posting additional evidence / comments on wiki relevant to concerns expressed privately by the other committee members. Should inappropriate usage be dealt with publicly on wiki, or privately between ArbCom members? ( EdChem)
Answered: SirFozzie ( talk) 03:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
(9) Should the process of (a) reviewing admin actions that may have breached policy, and (b) desysopping, remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo), or would you prefer that a community-based process also perform these roles? ( LessHeard vanU)
(10) Over the past year Arbcom has desysopped a number of admins. Generally do you think Arbcom has (a) not desysopped enough (b) got it about right (c) desysopped too much over this period? Why? ( Davewild)
(11) Do you support or oppose the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval? ( Finn Casey)
(12) Would you consider taking a case where it is clear that an admin has lost community trust, but there has been no RfC or attempts to resolve the issue? ( Majorly)
(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. ( NuclearWarfare)
(14) If it's discovered that an admin is a sock of a banned user, and that some users (including, but not only, admins) who had voted in Example's RFA knew this at the time, what measures should be taken against those voters? ( Od Mishehu)
(15) Over the past year Arbcom has made a few change in how it runs, such as introducing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee and establishing the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. What changes (if any) would you make in how the Arbitration Committee works? ( Davewild) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(16) In last year's election one of the successful candidates said in answer to a question "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. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generally be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree or disagree, and why? ( Davewild)
(17) ArbCom cases divert vast amounts of editor time and goodwill into often pointless arguments, causing constructive editors to feel oppressed and disillusioned, and leading to "remedies" that are in fact retributive punishments (often ill-targeted) that fail to remedy any real problems. Do you agree, and what would you do about it? ( Kotniski)
(18) Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why? How important is the ArbCom dispute resolution process? ( Camaron/ Majorly)
(19) A number editors in the community have expressed concern that the Arbitration Committee is becoming too powerful and expansive in response to some committee actions including the creation of the Advisory Council on Project Development and BLP special enforcement. Do you agree with them? How will you deal with such concerns if you are successfully elected to the committee? ( Camaron)
(20) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made any direct content rulings, i.e., how an article should read in the event of a dispute. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Should it sanction users for repeated content policy violations, even if there is no record of repeated conduct policy violations? Can 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? ( Heimstern)
(20-Supplemental) Hi, SirFozzie. After seeing your answer to the first question I wrote here, particularly the part about how the only case you knew in which AC had tried to set up discussions was the Ireland naming dispute, I wanted to point you to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia, which was also initiated by the Committee. Would it be possible for you to comment on the the possibility of AC using further solutions similar to this? It's information I'd need to be able to decide on my vote. (I know, more questions...) For my purposes, it's fine if you just write it here; you only need bother putting it at your question page if you think it's good for others to see it too. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional question.. SirFozzie ( talk) 07:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
(21) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: In my opinion and many others', the worst problem to plague Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how? ( Heimstern)
(22) Civility: How and when to enforce civility restrictions remains controversial. How admins should enforce it is largely outside the scope of this election, so I ask you this: To what extent and how should ArbCom enforce civility? Is incivility grounds for desysopping? Banning? Are civility restrictions a good idea? To what extent is incivility mitigated by circumstances such as baiting or repeated content abuses (POV pushing, original research etc.) by others? ( Heimstern)
(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? ( Offliner)
(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? ( Majorly)
(25) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's decision to set up Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development earlier this summer? If you were one of the founding members of the advisory council, please explain why you accepted the invitation to join the committee. ( NuclearWarfare)
(26) As of May 2009, only 5 of the 16 Arbitrators had made more than 500 edits to the mainspace in the past calendar year. Several arbitrators' past 500 edits stretched back over 12 months. [2] Considering this, do you feel that the Arbitration Committee is qualified to judge conduct disputes that overlap heavily with content disputes? Please elaborate. ( NuclearWarfare)
(section answered by SirFozzie at SirFozzie ( talk) 09:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC))
(27) Do you agree with the committee's decision to reban the_undertow/Law (see motion here)? Would you have handled the situation differently? ( Jake Wartenberg)
(28) Why do you think the committee chose to desysop Jennavecia but not Jayron32 (the motion to desysop Jennavecia was passing with all arbitrators having voted when Jennavecia resigned, the motion to desysop Jayron32 had been and was rejected; see the previous link)? How would you have voted? ( Jake Wartenberg)
(29) Iridescent and MZMcBride have both publicly admitted that they knew that Law was the_undertow at the time of Law's RfA. While MZMcBride did not vote in Law's RfA, Iridescent did. Noting that Iridescent is currently a user who has the ability to request the admin bit back at WP:BN at any time and that MZMcBride is currently a sysop, what do you think, if anything, should the Arbitration Committee have done? ( Jake Wartenberg)
(30) Out of all the cases handled by the Arbitration Committee in 2009, which one(s) do you think the committee as a whole handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choice(s). ( Camaron)
(31) For the purpose of the following five questions, please assume the principles in question are directly relevant to the facts of the case that you are deciding as an arbitrator. Would you support or oppose these principles as written should they be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? (To keep the amount of time required to respond to these examples to an absolute minimum, I personally would consider one or two sentences to be ample reasoning for the "why" part of this question; that kind of statement length is akin to many of the Arbitrator votes on the proposed decision pages of a case.) ( Daniel)
(i) "Private correspondence", July 2007
(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007
(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008
(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008
(v) "Outing", June 2009
(32) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's recent decision to appoint MBisanz as a fourth community member – or rather, alternate member with full access and possible voting rights – to the Audit Subcommittee after an election which was to elect three members to the subcommittee? ( NuclearWarfare)
Full answers
SirFozzie (
talk) 08:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
(33) Originally RfARs were named in the style of "Party X v. Party Y", in line with the idea of two groups in opposition to each other (eg. User:Guanaco versus User:Lir). Later it was changed to naming an individual user (eg. Husnock). Now cases get random names like Highways 2. What naming convention do you believe is the appropriate one for ArbCom to use in designating case names? Under what circumstances should a case name be changed after opening, such as in A/R/Zeraeph? ( MBisanz)
(34) Do you feel that the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach is correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? ( NuclearWarfare)
(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? ( Hipocrite)
(36) One issue on which arbitrators (and others participating in cases) frequently disagree is how "strict" versus "lenient" the committee should be toward users who misbehave and need to be sanctioned. Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, as a general matter in the types of cases that tend to lead to split votes among the arbitrators, do you think you would side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or those who vote for a greater number of bans and desysoppings? Generally, in a given case what factors might lead you to vote for (a) a less severe sanction, or for (b) a long-term ban or a desysopping? ( Newyorkbrad)
Good luck! Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your questions. SirFozzie ( talk) 22:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
These questions are being asked of all candidates.
Wikipedia has gone from being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but only successfully if they're aware of a morass of overlapping policies, recommendations, suggestions, procedures, committees, and teams". I think some of the questions you're being asked during your trek towards serving on the Arbitration Committee demonstrate the surprising complexity of the systems that are in place.
My questions surround your role in that bureaucracy, and your ability to make changes for the better. Thank you for entertaining them, and good luck with your candidacy. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 16:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your questions! SirFozzie ( talk) 09:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for running, and best of luck with your candidacy. In your statement, you mention that ArbCom "can highlight areas where Wikipedia's policies are unclear, contradictory or can be improved." This leads me to ask two questions. -- Bfigura ( talk) 21:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your question! SirFozzie ( talk) 06:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2008, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support. Please note that if you are not an administrator, have not been here for a substantial length of time, or have a statement that is not written seriously, this will drastically affect your score.
The first 10 questions are short answer questions. The next question determines your ability to go through evidence. The last question is a bit open-ended.
Thank you. Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your questions :) SirFozzie ( talk) 04:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Last year you were a candidate for the Arbitration Committee, gaining 154 Support votes but 103 Oppose votes. There were numreous claims of inciting drama, drama mongering, and "a desire to further engage in drama than work towards solving it." [3]
Drama mongering almost completely imploded the Arbitration Committee last year. Given your track record and your numerous instances where you seemingly prolonged drama, is there any reason for Wikipedia editors to believe that you will be an objective arbitrator that will not do much more harm than good to this committee and the project as a whole?
Thank you for the question: SirFozzie ( talk) 06:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question related to arbitration enforcement. Recently, another administrator undid one of my arbitration enforcement blocks without discussion, which ArbCom prohibited in 2008. Because a reblock by me would have been wheel-warring, I requested arbitral intervention at [4]. While the Committee appeared to agree that the enforcement was correct and the unblock was wrong, they did not seem inclined to do anything about it for 15 days until the case became moot because the admin was desysopped for unrelated reasons. This has led me to cease AE activity, because I view this non-reaction as a sign that the current ArbCom is not very interested in having its decisions actually enforced. As an arbitrator, what would you have done or advised in this situation? Thanks, Sandstein 06:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Note to readers: This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2009/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and modified to fit changes in circumstance.
Note 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. For those of you that ran last year, feel free to cut and paste last year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded.
These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your questions, Lar, and I'm sure the doctor who will be treating my carpal tunnel syndrome from answering these questions thanks you too! SirFozzie ( talk) 06:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer for what I know is a thankless, exhausting, nerve-wracking, emotionally draining, and real-life-affecting position here in EnWiki. For your courage alone, I salute you. I apologize if these questions replicate any above. If they do, please feel free to cut-and-paste your response here. Also, for any question with subquestions, please feel free to answer bthe subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi ( talk) 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts are that generally, the status of administrator desysopping on En.Wiki is good. Not EVERY de-sysop is clear cut and dried. There are some times where I think a de-sysop should have been done, and there are cases when a desysop was done that I wasn't 100% behind, but I can't think of any absolutely no-doubt screwups that ArbCom has made. As I said above, administrators must be allowed to make difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions (in some areas, if you enrage only HALF of the people in an area with a use of your administrator tools, you're lucky), so I do not support "One-size-fits-all" community de-adminning. I do support Request for Recall (and have put myself on it, despite the contentious areas I have worked in, through two unsuccessful requests). Emergency Desysops should never be permanent de-sysops.. until such time a formal motion and/or case can happen.
As for the voluntary relinquishment of tools (in good standing), and the reacquiring of them, I will say that I have used them myself. Over the last few months, a combination of personal health issues and family health issues required that my time was very limited on WP. So, I requested my tools be removed, as I felt that I could not do the duties of an administrator at that time. I am very glad to say that the health issues have been resolved satisfactorily, and I returned to WP a few months later. I do think that "inactive admins" should relinquish their tools, and then if there's no issues surrounding them when they become active again, be able to re-acquire the mop.
Civility is.. well, it's like the old judicial line about obscenity. "I know it when I see it". It can be the canary in the coal mine to indicate when people can no longer seek consensus with each other.. it becomes about each others conduct rather then the content. Usually, it's obvious when one or both sides are letting their civility slip... sometimes I think that ArbCom cases last that long because it shows, for the whole world to see who can and cannot deal with each other.. if you can't maintain a good public face while the magnifying glass of an ArbCom case (when you absolutely need to be on your best behavior), then what hope do we have that you can act appropriately without that light being shined on you..
I've answered most of those questions regarding psuedonymity and anonymity elsewhere.. but I think ArbCom's role is not to adjust those rights, but to enforce Wikipedia's policies.
My two areas are: Finding ways to improve Wikipedia's trust-worthiness and the factual information inside it. I'm harsher then most on editors whose first edits to Wikipedia are childish, immature vandalism (especially the sneaky kind, like changing one word to be a slur on them, and hiding it in an otherwise not so bad edit), I see that, and I wonder how we can ever trust that user to not get bored and do it again for kicks. Article Vandalism is bad enough when it's mere factual information, but when it's about PEOPLE.. especially living people, it can do immesurable harm. I would love to see ArbCom's members views on some of the things Lar and others have posted. ArbCom can't create this policy on their own.. but I think that we can lead the vanguard on it.
The other area is generally restoring trust and openness to Arbcom's proceedings. I've seen comments by some that indicate that their faith in this area has been damaged severely, almost irreparibly. For example, the recent issue where ArbCom decided that in case of a close Audit Subcommittee election, they would allow for the position of an alternate to be created, which did happen. There would have been much less of a problem had this motion been announced publicly.. when ArbCom announced it ex post facto, many users had the feeling that ArbCom was making up the rules as they went.. and their trust in ArbCom was damaged. I think any private motion that ArbCom passes privately should be posted publicly in a timely manner (with certain exceptions, for example, if private information would be divulged).
Thanks for your questions! SirFozzie ( talk) 07:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
It is important that arbitrators be engaged, whether that is answering emails (sometimes, an answer is not possible, but the email/post should at least be acknowledged). I think that arbitrators posting on the talk page CAN be useful at times, but not always.
And I do understand how folks can believe that being in front of ArbCom can be intensely stressful. I've been there and done that. I've had some ups and downs with cases in front of ArbCom. Perhaps, streamlining the case and having all evidence posted publicly within 30-45 days, and then closing the evidence page would be an idea worth considering. I'm not necessarily advocating for the idea myself, but it's ideas like that we should be taking a look at to consider if it's useful.
With regards to the essay.. my thoughts are that it must be a careful weighing of the value that users bring versus the disruption that they bring, and considering the following.. "Would alternate restrictions remove the disruption and keep the value?" If the disruption outweighs the value, and alternate restrictions would not at least balance the scales, then it would be more needed to use full sanctions.
With regards to your added question, I can understand how positive reinforcement can help as well, but I think it should be for exceptional cases, and not just a rubber stamp "But we think he's a jolly good fellow" type platitudes.
Thanks for your questions! SirFozzie ( talk) 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC) (Updated: SirFozzie ( talk) 19:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC))
Do you use any of the wikimedia related IRC channels? If you do, will you please permit any logs of your conversations to be posted, in full? Thanks.
Thank you for your question, however. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Have you read War and Peace?
Jimbo made a policy statement about paid editing [5]. What is your position on Jimbo's continuing (not past) role on policy making? Is paid editing against policy? (I like short answers; I hope you like short questions) Smallbones ( talk) 22:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I would recuse myself if I cannot fairly decide the merits of an issue, or there is the appearance that I could not fairly decide the merits of an issue. For an example, if there's a Troubles 2 case, and I'm on ArbCom, there is no doubt that my past efforts in that area would nearly mandate that if I participated, it would be as an administrator who's worked on the area, and thus I would recuse. Thanks for the question, Boris SirFozzie ( talk) 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
My goal is to do my best to fully explain my votes on any proposed decision that is before arbcom, as well as to explain the tenets of any proposed decision I write at the time I post them.
I also know the danger of judging a book by its cover.. generally in an ArbCom case, ArbCom members who have a strong opinion about an editor (such as that would cause the pre-judging you fear), should recuse. I pledge to uphold that.
Thanks for your questions! SirFozzie ( talk) 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
SirFozzie
|