Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Wizardman/Questions for the candidate

Question from I

1. What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committe? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? i ^(talk) 04:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

   I think the main thing that's an issue is the lack of activity, and some cases being in limbo for some time. In some particularly heated cases, this is not necessarily a bad thing, as it cools off the dispute and allows ArbCom to view a case for what it is, and possibly allows Arbcom to not even have to take action. (A prime example of this would be Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid). However, for cases that are more "clear cut" that end up being voted on for over a month, activity is surprisingly an issue. If there's only a bit of evidence, with the course of action fairly obvious and not a lot to read, then it should be dealt with relatively quickly (Of course, not too quickly, we have to make sure we read and understand all parts of the case). I guess my main issue here is if there are 9 arbitrators on a case, then it shouldn't take over a month to get 5 of them to vote on pieces of the proposed decision, let alone 5 in dis/agreement. If appointed, I will make sure I take part of the time I use for article writing or rfa viewing to look through the cases and vote on them in a timely matter (and of course check up on them if new information were found out at a critical point). Wizardman 04:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 04:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the NPOV policy is certainly one of the most important policies we have at wikipedia; helps make us more reliable as an encyclopedia. The problem with SPOV lies within its context. SPOV, according to the historical page, "should be written to the exclusion of all others" or "SPOV should be written prioritised over all others". If we were to do this, that it's an NPOV violation if the article has POVs other than a scientific one. I'm not too knowledgeable in the sciences, so I have not seen SPOV in action, so I don't have too much to draw from in that regard, though I hope I answered your question fully. Wizardman 02:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from east718

1. Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?
2. I don't know much about you, so this space is reserved for a less impersonal question. Please check back later. Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why?

Thanks, east.718 at 04:35, 11/1/2007

1. The answer to question one I covered in I's question, I do believe that they do take awfully long at some junctions. If a case regarding a troublesome editor goes through the process in 1.5 months, ended with the user being banned, and this decision could've been make in 2 weeks based on the evidence, then it should be handled in a relatively short time. It would actually make it easier for the arbitrators as well as Wikipedia if this were to occur. Cases should not be finished quickly if there's a difficult decision to be made, or if the arbitration committee seems relatively split. For example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS went over 3 months, yet based on reading the proposed decision this may very well have been justified. What will I do to remedy the situation? I'll vote on cases, be involved, and I will of course make an informed decision while keeping the process moving at the same time. Wizardman 17:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

   As for question 2, would explaining a case that should've been accepted but wasn't satisfy your question? Wizardman 02:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   Yes. Sorry for the delay. east.718 at 07:31, 11/14/2007

   Alright. Personally, I think the Kmweber case should've been accepted. This is not because of anything he did at all, but rather I was hoping for an acceptance only because the drama had come to a climax without consensus, and ideally the situation of the issue of RfA, the block, the agenda, etc. probably should have been at least looked at so that we have a consensus on what to do should something similar happen in the future. Things seem to have died down on that front, so the rejection appears to be the right move as of now; time will tell though if the rejection was correct. Wizardman 03:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern

My questions are kind of nitty-gritty, but I'm not looking for really specific answers as much as trying to see your thought process and approaches to the issues.

1. What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate?

Edit warriors are quite a problem on wikipedia, and if a revert parole renders them harmless, or even constructive, then that's ideal. If they continue, and show no attempt to discuss on the talk page, or just drive all other editors crazy, perhaps a ban is in order if it continue past the arbitration stage. As for when each is appropriate, it's a myriad of things, most notably how long the edit warring has been going on, and how widespread it is. If it's not too long or mainly confined, revert parole or a topic ban is all that's necessary; a ban would be needed if incivility, or something similar, is combined with these two significantly. Wizardman 20:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?

In the case of uncivil editors, arbitrators need to view the degree of incivility, as well as how widespread it is (is it in edit summaries, user talk pages, just one space?). As for how to sanction them, civility parole with relatively strict blocks could work (i.e. at least long enough where we can assume said user has cooled down). If the incivility is extremely serious and is chasing off other editors, I would not be opposed to even temporary bans should the situation calls for it. Wizardman 04:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

3. When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

An administrator should be desysopped when there is clear evidence of long-term abuse, whether that be wheel warring, using the tools to gain advantages in disputes, or even serious issues that don't necessarily involve admin tools directly, such as gross incivility/personal attacking, and the like. The usefulness/failings should be weighed somewhat, though you can only use good works to mask unadminlike actions for so long. I honestly don't really see the point of a temporary desysop, as the community comes to consensus to trust admins with all the tools, and if one's temporarily desysopped, then it means they did something to lose our trust. If that's the case, why should they just get the tools back after a short time? It's generally a full desysop or nothing for me, which might be radical, but I believe my reasoning is sound. Wizardman 02:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?

If a user is indef-banned, and discusses through e-mail or otherwise some time down the road expressing a desire to change, then perhaps it could be appealed, however said user would have to be kept on a very, very tight leash for at least a year. One has to remember why the person got banned in the first place. If it's something very serious where the user was banned relatively quickly, I can't see an appeal being considered. If it's something disruptive and annoying, but not legally damaging to wikipedia, then it would be on a case-by-case basis. Wizardman 20:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

5. Two recent cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, were dismissed with no decision made after the Committee had been unable to come to a decision concerning wrongdoing or sanctions. In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Wikipedia. Now, consider a similar situation in which the Committee cannot agree on finding concerning user conduct or on appropriate sanctions, but in which the case issues are clearly current What should be done in such a case?

Well, that's difficult to say. If there's no consensus by the arbitration committee anywhere, then maybe they have to think of other solutions to where a consensus can be achieved. Even if 6 arbitrators believe one side and 6 believe the other (and 3 are inactive, let's say), then there's going to be some middle ground that they have to find. Ironically, this are the cases that maybe should last a bit longer, so that the drama dies down and they can see the case for what it is. (Since many arbitrators have prior dispute resolution experience, I would hope that they would realize that they need to come to a consensus). Wizardman 23:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Majorly

These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)

1. How do you think that your personality would make you a good arbitrator?
2. Do you have any experience in real life that could relate to activities arbitrators have to deal with?

Thanks for your time. Majorly (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

1. To answer the second question first, nothing specific. I do have some governmental and decision-making experience, but I'm not a litigation attorney or anything of that nature. To answer the first question, I pride myself on evaluating both sides of a story before making a decision. Since Arbcom by nature shows us both sides, I believe this puts me at an advantage. I will be able to make the decision that is best both for the parties and Wikipedia as a result. Wizardman 18:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Picaroon

• Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007#2007's case workload - reference for potential candidates and User:Picaroon/Stats. Do you have time to vote on most of the approximately eight cases a month that will come before the committee? Would you resign your post if you found yourself consistently (say, 2-3 months on end) unable to even get near that goal? Under what conditions besides inactivity would you resign your post?

  I don't see 8 cases a month as being particularly bad. 8 cases is about one every 4 days, which I personally believe I can handle. If I did realize that I was falling ridiculously behind and doing a poor job of contributing, I would most likely resign. Better we have an active arbitrator that one that sits with the title and does nigh-everything on Wikipedia except arbcom. Besides inactivity, if i was getting solid complaints from a vast majority of other arbitrators or users in general, I'd probably open up a recall (much like what admins have). Wizardman 20:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Under what conditions should non-arbitrators be granted access to the arbcom mailing list? Former members, checkusers/oversights who have never been on the committee, board members, others?

  Hm, this is an iffy one. Since most of what's discussed is arbcom-related matters I believe, in general others wouldn't need access. However, there may be other issues brought up in the mailing list that may require the insight of former arbitrators (if it's a case that has roots from years back, for example). Generally though, I don't see a need for many other groups to be on the mailing list. Wizardman 03:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Can you show an example or two of a normal case (ie, accepted via committee vote on WP:RFAR, not dismissed without remedies) where you largely disagree with the final decision? Please explain why you disagree with the outcome, and say what you would've supported instead (or, alternately, why the case shouldn't have been accepted).

  I can't think of any where I've "largely disagreed" with the final decision, with the exception of a couple that were dismissed without remedies, but that doesn't apply to this question. Wizardman 20:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please list the total number of alternate accounts you have used, and please list the usernames of as many as you feel comfortable making public.

  On enwiki, this is my only account; i don't have any socks or doppelgangers. I use the username Wizardman on Commons, Meta, and the Spanish Wikipedia. Wizardman 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Under what circumstances should a case be heard completely via email, as opposed to onwiki? Under what conditions should the committee block a user without making public the full extent of the reasoning (for example, this user)?

  I'm finding it nearly impossible to see a case where everything would have to be done by e-mail. Keeping things off wiki is generally done for personal information and the like, i doubt a case would come up where 100% of the evidence or problems are personal. Cases should try to be kept on wiki unless there is a valid reason to keep them in e-mail. If someone is blocked without full reasoning, then it's okay if, again, it would out personal information otherwise. Wizardman 17:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• What do you think of Jimmy Wales desysop of Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) a few days ago? (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My desysop of Zscout370‎)? What should he have done differently, if anything? What role should the committee have had in this?

  I'll answer this one first since I've thought long and hard about my stance regarding this whole situation. I didn't have a strong opinion about the block or unblock leading up to it. I thought Jimbo's later rationale on wikipedia using AGF a little too much on "annoying, though maybe not malicious, individuals" had some solid footing, though his decision to make the block right before a short wikibreak was iffy. At the same time, Zscout370's unblock was iffy; he could've waited a couple days, and Miltopia never added the unblock template. Now to get to Jimbo's desysopping. He said that he desysopped because "Zscout370 instead wheel warred with me by unblocking and making snide remarks", which I'm having trouble finding truth to this statement. According to the policy itself, a wheel war is not an admin undoing an admin action once (Note that Zscout did not re-unblock after Tom harrison re-blocked), and he did not appear to unblock maliciously. I found zero snide remarks when I looked as well. In short, it seemed to be a "snap reaction" to Jimbo's action being undone. It seemed to be done in haste personally, and I think community consensus spoke for itself on the reaction it got. We can place things they should've done differently in many spots; Jimbo should've waited until Monday to block, Zscout should've waited until Monday to unblock, Jimbo should've waited for an explanation from Zscout before a desysop, etc. I think the main thing that needs to be learned from that is how important communication is. If someone disagrees about something, don't hide from it, it could snowball. Since it was a solitary action, and everything seemed to settle down, I can't see a strong need for ArbCom involvement in this specifically. If a similar situation with Jimbo were to happen in the future, perhaps we need to develop a better understanding of what his role is on wikipedia. The question would then be is whether that's for arbcom to decide o not, and I don't have that answer at this time; it depends what the future holds. Wizardman 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Under what circumstances should the committee implement an indefinite ban on a user? Under what conditions should probation/supervised editing be instituted instead of a ban of any duration?

  The committee should put an indefinite ban on a user if that user has demonstrated a long-term period of abuse, disruption, etc. with no intent to contribute constructively. Said abuse must be serious as well. Probation or supervised editing should happen if the user's abuse is maybe confined to one policy that they don't seem to get, or someone who edits constructively yet is a handful. Wizardman 20:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• What constitutes a wheel war? Was the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN situation a wheel war? How about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar? Thanks for your time, Picaroon (t) 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  A wheel war is when an admin reverts another admin's action when there is already a dispute on the matter (A deletes, B restores, ideally B should take it to ANI or the deleting admin upon doing this, else a wheel war is likely to begin). As for whether those three were wheel wars, I'll respond to that on more studying of the cases. Wizardman 20:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  To follow up and answer the rest of your question, it's difficult for me to say that BJAODN was a wheel war, based on the underlying problems with it, so I'd say that it wasn't (georgewilliamherbert should have discussed it with alkivar immediately afterward though, but because of the situation he may have violated the letter of wheel-warring, but not so much the spirit of it). The Alkivar case did have wheel-warring, since Alkivar re-blocked someone despite it being overturned. The Sadi Carnot case appears to be a wheel war as well, since Sadi never added an unblock template, so no reason for the double unblock originally. Wizardman 18:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Sean William

1. In your opinion, what is the best way to deal with revert-warriors brought before ArbCom?

   If the revert-warriing is not too long or mainly confined, revert parole or a topic ban is all that's necessary; a ban would be needed if incivility, or something similar, is combined with these two significantly. (This is taken from Heimstern's question above, check there for a more in-depth answer) Wizardman 04:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

2. What is your opinion about revert parole (1RR limitations, etc.)?

   Revert paroles can work well so long as they are enacted strictly. For example, if someone's been edit-warring for many months, making a remedy of one revert a day doesn't deter the behavior very well, it's have to be a week or so. It shouldn't be a problem for constructive editors to follow this. Wizardman 17:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

3. What is your opinion about civility parole (also known as personal attack parole)?

   If someone's being very incivil and attacking, then ideally civility parole and the like should be indefinite. I say that because technically all of us should be civil in discussions, it says something about the user if arbcom has to monitor and tell them to be civil. Wizardman 17:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sean William @ 16:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from xaosflux

1. As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)

   Well, those two permissions are given to very few users for a reason; they are very sensitive and personal tools that have to be used with the utmost responsibility. I don't know how the oversight backlog is so I can't comment on the number of oversights being adequate or not (It seems to be, i never see complaints). We probably could do with a few more checkusers since that gets constantly backlogged, the question is who to pick for those spots; they have to have a vast amount of community trust, and not many users have that, so we have to be careful. Wizardman 04:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from CO

1. Question one: Is consensus really possible with over 200 people commenting on different processes?

   Answer: Well, if 200+ people are commenting, I would think consensus would be clearer in these cases. Granted, many of these larger discussions do appear to have a smaller consensus since everyone is handing out their opinions. It's both the good and bad thing about AfD; a smaller sampling makes consensus easier to determine, yet the sample may be flawed. It, of course, depends on the process. If 200 comment on an RfA, consensus may be a lot clearer than a vote on a major policy (Attribution) which is likely to be seen by more Wikipedians. It's the dilemma of the color of the toolshed (Not the actual name, but the name of that page escapes me); people will voice their opinions on matters they easily understand. I feel like I'm going in circles, so to make a long answer short, it's possible depending on the process; it ranges from possible to unlikely to impossible, roughly a 20-40-40 scale. If you want me to reclarify my answer let me know. Wizardman 02:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Question two: Does Wikipedia need some sort of governing body? If no, isn't ArbCom a governing body? If yes, what would you propose?

   Answer: Hm.. this is either a very loaded question or I've been over thinking it. I'll answer that second part first. As opposed to using the term "governing body", I see the Arbcom as being exactly like the Supreme Court of the United States. Is this considered a governing body in the sense that you probably mean? That I'm not sure, though it is closer than anything we have now. Does it need one though? There's definitely arguments for and against it; Wikipedia has gotten so large that a group overseeing all editors could be beneficial, yet having a group of higher-ups would certainly be intimidating to some. I guess I'd have to see a governing body trial before I could form a proper opinion of it, though I'm reluctant to have one at this point. Wizardman 05:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Question three: What's your opinion of closed groups and discussions on Wikipedia (such as #wikipedia-en-admin, MEDCOM, and ARBCOM)?

   Answer: So long as they're not making decisions that will affect everyone without discussing it with the community, I don't mind them. That's the simple answer at least, I can see why people like them, I can see why people don't. Wizardman 02:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wanderer57

Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?

Thanks, Wanderer57 01:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've only followed a couple closely recently, admittedly, but the ones that I have seen have been quite fair. Generally, there will be at least two outside views defending each party in some manner, which a few neutral statements as well. Only in obvious cases do the outside views seem lopsided. For example, let's look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alkivar. Alkivar to be close to a desysop based on the arbcom's decision thus far, and it seems split between Alkivar being a problem and it not being a big deal. Others that I have followed (nearly all of which have went to arbcom), show similar trends of fairness to both sides. Wizardman 02:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Daniel

1: The use of IRC evidence in arbitration cases has flared up in certain cases. A few questions on this:-

a) Do you believe that IRC conversations in Wikipedia channels (ie. #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-admins) should be admissible in arbitration cases where it is directly relevant to the dispute at hand?

Well, I'm reluctant to allow that, if only for the reason that things can be easily taken out of context in chat rooms, though I see why people would argue for this. If something is obviously being discussed on irc that's controversial or odd, then it probbaly should be admissible.

b) Do you believe the Arbitration Committee has the jurisdiction to sanction users in these channels when it relates to Wikipedia disruption? If not, should it?

Tough to say. Wikipedia is not IRC, plus if they're disruping wikipedia and discussing it on IRC, if you handle the disruption, they won't really have anything to talk about anyway. I'd say no, since it would probably be far more trouble than it'd be worth.

c) If so, what are your thoughts on possibly creating an official Arbitration Committee IRC logging account in these channels for the purpose of providing corrupt-free logs when required for deliberation?

No opinion on this one yet pending this. Wizardman 18:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

2: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they?

Well, from the looks of the recent Giano block, e-mails can't be published on Wikipedia without the consent of both parties due to the possibility of personal information inadvertently being leaked or the like. If both parties don't mind an e-mail being shown, and there's no issues of personal info, then that shouldn't be a problem. IRC logs are a bit more difficult, since they are seen by a greater number of people, and since it's just username the personal info idea isn't a problem. However, things said on irc, even in log form, can be taken out of context by other parties, which would cancel out any good coming from showing the logs. I think if serious current issues are discussed in IRC in a way where it woud be beneficial for the community to hear it may it be admissible, since if there's a problem on wikipedia that affects a good deal of us, there's no reason to hide in a channel to discuss it. Granted, I'd rather not make a judgment yet since there appears to be a proposed policy in the works which answers this question. Wizardman 16:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

3: Are Wikipedians, in particular administrators, required to answer to the Committee for their activites outside English Wikipedia (ie. on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wikipedia-related websites including The Wikipedia Review, conduct linked to Wikipedia etc.). Should they be? If so, should the Arbitration Committee have intervened in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision?

1. Will respond after further research in this matter, since I didn't take part in any of it personally. Wizardman 17:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

4: Theoretical situation: an OTRS respondent blanks a section of an article on a living person, clearly stating that it is an OTRS action based on a semi-credible legal threat in the edit summary. The respondent then protects the article and leaves a note on the talk page asking for the section to be rebuilt, citing OTRS again. An administrator comes along and unprotects it 15mins later and reverts to the old version. A series of administrative and editorial reversions take place, with protection and unprotection (with content reversions) occurring three times in quick succession before both administrators are emergency-desysopped.

The article is then reprotected by a third administrator, and a case brought before the Arbitration Committee. Upon reviewing the OTRS ticket privately on the mailing list, it contains a semi-credible legal threat which is now being dealt with by legal counsel. With regards to the three administrators, what sanctions do you 'support' applying to each of the three?

Well, OTRS is a serious matter, so I would say the one that unprotected and reverted it, trying to throw the stuff back in that was taken out due to OTRS, would be desysopped for something like that. I'd admonish the first one for continuing to revert and not taking the issue to ANI, which would have made this go far ore smoothly. Wizardman 15:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

5: What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war?

Well, it depends on the situation. If an admin performs an action, and another admin reverts it without any discussion, then that would be a wheel war. If admin A or C were to put that action back to where it was though, that would also be a wheel war. If the same admin were to have reverted the first admin, but posted a topic on the user talk page or one or the noticeboards explaining the rationale for doing so, while that may lack good faith, that's not a wheel war then, since the admin is willing to talk it out. Generally a third admin coming along and reverting, whether for one side or the other, is wheel warring. There are other grey areas in the idea of wheel warring that would be to be done by a case-by-case basis. Wizardman 15:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Addhoc

Are there any subject areas that you would recuse yourself from? Thanks! Addhoc 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any biases, or any problems with subjects that would cause me to have to recuse from a case. If I think of any I'll et you know, but I'm pretty sure I'm good for anything. Wizardman 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ultraexactzz

Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.

Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.

Needless to say, it did not go well.

However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Judgment. Wizardman 17:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wikidudeman

In my experience, many larger arbitrations seem to suffer from the fact that the arbitrators do not spend as much time on examining the evidence and statements as they should be spending. Examples of problems that arise would be proposals not being used or relevant issues not even being addressed. This is probably due to the large backlog and caseload. What would you do to ensure that all arbitrations are ended efficiently and fairly and that all issues and concerns are addressed and all needed remedies met? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is similar to the points I made above; basically if the simple cases where maybe one remedy, finding of fact, etc. is proposed is finished up quickly, then the cases where many people are bringing in their opinion and the workshops are immense can be handled easier then it's been. Plus, if one of us arbitrators feel that a remedy or fact is missing, then we should throw it in for a vote; Kirill's good at choosing them, yes, but so many cases are just the ones he chooses, can't be afraid to add proposals and the like in if you think it will address a concern. Wizardman 20:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Dihydrogen Monoxide

You're an excellent article contributor. Will your article work fall because of ArbCom, and is this the best contribution you can make to the project? — H₂O —  00:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a question I asked myself prior to putting myself up for election. Although I do put together the occasional WP:DYK article or WP:GA, I do so relatively inconsistently, generally writing articles when I'm in the mood to do so. Ideally, if the mood strikes me, and I'm well caught up in arbitration case viewing, then I could take time to put together an article. As for whether or not this is the best contribution I can make, I've considered myself a "jack of all trades" user, so I can't outright say yes or no on that answer. The best contribution I can make would be wherever I am of most benefit, and it remains to be see if I am of most benefit on ArbCom. Wizardman 02:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Anonymous Dissident

By submitting a candidacy for the December 2007 Arbitration Committee Elections, you are indicating your commitment to Wikipedia, and your belief in its continuance and worth as a project. What do you personally see for the future, both near and distant, of Wikipedia as a collaborative effort to bring free knowledge to the planet, and what are your feelings in regards to the Arbitration Committees relation to the successful endurance of the quality and credibility, among other aspects, of Wikipedia, and of Wikipedia itself? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What I see for the future, is ideally a slowdown in quantity of articles, and a strong movement towards quality in all aspects; cleanup, free images, great sources, etc. This would eventually move into a reliable encyclopedia; we're great at keeping recent events updated, ideally this can be expanded to all articles. I feel that the Arbtration Committee's role will be to keep things running in terms of "keeping the peace" mainly through what it already does. In an ideal situation arbcom wouldn't need too much of a change excluding getting a bit larger, though there's probably some things that may have to be handled that we don't down the road. Wizardman 20:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from User:Secret

• What do you think about self-admitted alternative accounts, see User:MOASPN, and User:Privatemusings as an example? This is a Secret ^account 01:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• What do you think of Wikipedia Review? This is a Secret ^account 01:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  Well, self-admitted alternate accounts, in my opinion, are okay only if they say who their main account is, and if they generally keep this alternate account within the mainspace. As for WR, that's admittedly a very touchy subject. There are some moderates who point out old vandalism and the like, but it seems that the radicals, which appear to be a majority of them, try to out people and destroy wikipedia as opposed to providing constructive criticism. If WR was just that group of people who don't out/harass admins or vandalize and just discuss/constructively criticize wikipedia, then it wouldn't be a big deal; it is that group that causes damage on both the wiki and personal levels that ruins it for themselves. Wizardman 20:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from WJBscribe

A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer.

1. Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Wikipedia in three years. Should there be a mechanism by which the Community can recall an arbitrator in whose judgment it loses confidence? Do you have any thoughts as to what form that mechanism should take?

   Hm, this is a tougher question than it appears on the surface. I could say that yes, there should be a mechanism for at least long-time inactive ones where we can temporarily fill the spot with a different arbitrator until said user returns (which would presumably go to the top user by % who didn't get elected in the last arbcom election). For an arbitrator in which one loses confidence, I'm less open to the idea. I know some users had thoughts about this due to the Fred Bauder-clown issue, but if one arbitrator seems to occasionally display "iffy" behavior, then out of 9-10 arbitrators voting on a case that normally wouldn't make a difference. If there were one, then it would have to be a relatively complex proposal, a simple consensus/vote would be too open to abuse. Wizardman 16:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

2. ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Wikipedia. Would you advocate withdrawing the access in the case of someone someone who failed to make sufficient use of it? If yes, what sort of activity level would you say is required?

   Well, there may be some time periods where checkuser and oversight may only be needed infrequently, so while I would advoate it, the minimum activity level would have to be low. Since I don't know how often the oversight and checkuser features are used on average, I can only say that a "long amount of time without using it" would be sufficient for removal. (Plus, we don't need accounts sitting around with access to that). Wizardman 18:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Where the Community finds itself unable to reach a consensus on the formulation of a given policy, do you think ArbCom has a role to play in determining that policy?

Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

1. If the policy has went through a venue of getting outside opinion and the policy is sufficient for discussion, then it wouldn't be a bad idea for ArbCom to have a look at it providing there's a separate reason for arbcom to look at it as well. The community should be deciding whether that's policy ideally. Wizardman 18:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718

1. Disputes over nationalist conflicts involving multiple editors seem to find their way to ArbCom fairly regularly. Do these topics, articles, or editors need to be treated differently in some way by ArbCom?

   Can't think of a reason to. ArbCom's meant to be unbiased, and that would be the only probably added in with whatever the problem is. Wizardman 02:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

2. If you could by fiat change one WP rule, policy, guideline, or practice, what would you choose? Why?

   Honestly, I'd say the writing about fiction policy. It's made so that it's nearly impossible to create legit good articles on many fictional characters, and actually ended up causing a current arbcom case. This belief is more because I think modifying it would allow for us to grow as an encyclopedia than anything else, but I fully understand the need for the guideline. Wizardman 02:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

3. I've seen it written that to be a good arbitrator, a WPian needs to first be a good editor. Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment? How do you consider your own editing?

   I'm going to say not necessarily on this one, though I get what you're going at. To be a good arbitrator, one must be great at dispute resolution, first and foremost. However, you could effectively argue that to be good at dispute resolution you need to be a good editor, and since some things are content disputes, that could very well be true. I think my own editing's pretty good, though it's difficult to judge oneself on this matter. Wizardman 16:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Are you 15? 25? 55? Are you a student? Do you have an occupation that lends itself to allowing you time to be involved in ArbCom? Jd2718 07:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   Answering question 4 first while I have a minute, I am a college-age college student. My schedule this coming semester is such that it does give me time to concentrate on ArbCom matters without any problems. I have quite a bit of free time here, so I would definitely have time to be involved. Wizardman 13:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Revolving Bugbear

In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:

The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear 16:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the English Wikipedia is base in the US, we should primarily follow these laws. (These French rulings would affect mainly, of course, the French Wikipedia). If there's a problem with US law somewhere, then that of course needs to be taken seriously and we need to get rid of the problem. If thee's a problem with another law, it's more difficult. We have to look at what the law is there compared to the US, and act accordingly. Wizardman 17:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from xDanielx

What is your opinion on the difference between private (i.e., consensus through arbcom elist) and public (i.e., WP:RFAR) ArbCom decisions? Should both be regarded as equally authoritative? Does the ArbCom have an obligation to make the former publicly accessible upon reasonable request (assuming no privacy issues are involved)?

While I would personally prefer decisions be kept on wiki so other users understand the rationale behind them, I fully understand the need for both. It's tough to say if both should be equal, seeing as how it's hard to trust something we understand and something we don't easily. However, we have to use good faith in these cases. I mean, we elect the arbitrators to make the tougher calls that we may not be allowed to see. To answer your last question, if there's no good reason not to, then yes. Wizardman 02:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus

1. Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?

   Ideally they should. I mean they're not elected to pick and choose a couple cases, they are trusted with whatever is thrown their way. Wizardman 02:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

2. If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?

   If they have valuable insight, then they should. I wouldn't say they have to, but if there's a debate on a proposed finding of fact and an arbitrator has a convincing argument on it, then of course they should add it in. They don't have to comment on every proposition (if they did that we'd have a bunch of burned out arbitrators), but they should be a little involved at least. Plus it'll give them a deeper understanding of the case that way, so it's win-win. Wizardman 17:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer?

   Well, no one should be incivil if they can help it. Ideally editors wouldn't be more equal than others, alas the community seems to inadvertently accept some incivility from editors if they do a great job overall, which is unfortunate. It's the nature of the beast; we want to make the best encyclopedia we can, but I don't think we can do so if people are biting others. Wizardman 19:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

4. How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Phiotrus | talk} 18:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Since WP:CIV is a more vague policy than 3RR, enforcing it efficiently like that would be difficult, nigh impossible. They should be enforced and handled pretty well, though the remedy for a civility problem is different for different people. That's why Arbcom often looks at this, to see what the best remeedy would be for this particular user. Wizardman 19:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68

I notice from looking at your userpage that you've contributed done a lot of great work for the project, including several Featured lists and Good articles. As an arbitrator, would you anticipate that the time-demands of working on arbitration cases might affect your content editing efforts? Cla68 03:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Similar to what I said to Dihydrogen Monoxide above, although I do put together the occasional WP:DYK article or WP:GA, I do so relatively inconsistently, generally writing articles when I'm in the mood to do so. Ideally, if the mood strikes me, and I'm well caught up in arbitration case viewing, then I could take time to put together an article. So, it shouldn't affect content editing too much. Wizardman 03:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Points of View: When does including "notable" points of view become problematic for NPOV?

When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?--David Shankbone 18:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is one of the problems of Wikipedia. We are, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, and as such, why should be added in in moderation at best. By using the emphasis on "why", it invites pov-warring, while offering little true encyclopedia content. It's nice to add in small arguments for and against on contentious issues, to help explain why this is contentious, but to allow them to dominate the article just hurts what we're here to do. Wizardman 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from AniMate

Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? AniMate 12:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe Nathan, Terry Pendleton, Cris Dishman are my three recent "projects". Hoping to make the first one an FA shortly. Wizardman 17:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional Question from Cla68

So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Wizardman 13:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754

1. What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).

   I like the way the naming conventions poll was done. It's a shame that arbcom had to step in just to get it to that stage though. I also noticed that dispute resolution on the polling appeared to be pretty spread out among several pages as opposed to just there, which is a problem. This dilemma and conflict occurred when I was still new, so I don't understand it particularly well, but it seems to show what happens when consensus building isn't put first. Wizardman 01:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

2. a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) own articles or c) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?

   The purpose is to have a group of editors join to collaborate and help eah other out on related articles. Wikiprojects don't "own" articles and though they can't enforce standards in a police sense, if they were able to make a good layout guideline and it was widely accepted, then that's fine. Wizardman 01:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)

   If it's a layout change or the like that the parent project is imposing that will greatly affect the child project, then it should be discussed between them. Wizardman 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

4. a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?

   My definition of canvassing is basically the same as WP:CANVASS, and yes. Wizardman 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

5. a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?

   If someone vandalizes, I use rollbacks, warnings, and blocks accordingly based on the kinds of vandalism. In terms of good faith edits that really messed up the page, I either try and modify it, rollback and and it pieces of it myself, or if it's not useful on the page, just get rid of it, but point out that it was a good faith edit.

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Risker

There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing[1]. Amongst the reasons for this suggestion is to prevent parties from revising policy in a way that favours their point of view, to prevent edit wars on active policies, and to maintain a stable policy base so that users can rest assured that they are staying within policy. Do you believe that this is a good course of action for the encyclopedia? Please respond from your perspective as a prospective member of Arbcom who would be responsible for interpreting policy (but feel free to add your opinion as an editor as well). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I like the idea in principle. The principle of the wiki wouldn't be needed at the policy level, since new users don't need to modify that. I dunno if it would protect edit warring since it's often admins who involve themselves in these edit wars. This is a good course though, because it will be easier to keep tabs on what exactly each policy means, which would make arbcom's job easier in a sense, since it would be easier to understand and interpret policy when things aren't messed around with. Wizardman 18:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blue Tie

1. Can/Should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?

The first question, no. If they want to develop a policy like any other editor for community vote then they can, they shouldn't be forced to do it though.

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member? --Blue Tie 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably not; I'll be too busy at RFAR. Wizardman 18:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

--thanks--Blue Tie 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from SilkTork

How would you vote on this proposed principle: "While anyone may edit Wikipedia without the need to register, that meta-editing activities such as voting in an ArbCom Election are best protected by registering than by sleuthing". SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd support it. Wizardman 22:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Irpen

The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private.

Mailing list

Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?

Secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators

What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?

Recusals

Arbitrators who are parties of the case or have an involvement with the case parties that can reasonably be considered to affect their impartiality are expected to recuse. What involvement constitutes the ground for a recusal has traditionally been left to the arbitrators' own discretion, except for obvious cases when arbitrators themselves are case parties. While recused arbitrators, especially the case parties, are allowed to take an active part in cases, collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages, the same way as ordinary parties, they retain the opportunity to read the thoughts of other arbitrators at Arbcom-L and respond to those privately. It is technically difficult to exclude arbitrators from communication on a case they are involved. But would you support a prohibition for such arbitrators to discuss the case with other arbitrators through the private communication channels, except when submitting evidence whose nature warrants non-publicity?

Community oversight over the arbitration policy

Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?