Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Avraham

If honestly asked, there is no such thing as a stupid question…

---

Question(s) from Rama's arrow

1. Can you describe how you will deal with the feedback and inputs of the general community of editors on different cases? What kind of role will such outside opinions play in your work as an arbitrator? Rama's arrow 04:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Requests for arbitration have a distinct format and template that is used. In general, I feel that the primary evidence and data that should be used in analyzing the situation is the statements and evidence provided by participants to the RfAr. Anyone may choose to become a participant, of course. However, as is clearly stated on every RfAr, “Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.” Anyone who takes the time to post their opinion or provide evidence will, and should, have their say taken into account. In that vein, there really are no "outside" opinions. There are participants, who will be bound by the ArbCom decision and as such have more at stake. Therefore, their statements should be given more weight. Then there are commentators, whose evidence and opinions are actively solicited and taken into consideration as well. The actual weighting is somewhat semantic, as each and every case will be different, and a well written comment should be considered as strongly, if not more so, than a two-line, half-hearted statement by a participant. So, remembering that RfaR's are not a vote of the general wiki population, each case needs to be judged on its own merits, based on the applicable guidelines, policies, and other issues that are being alleged, and all wikipedians who take part in the process as it is constituted should be heard. -- Avi 04:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
2. (This is to improve my knowledge as much as to know yours) What do you think about the problem of several admins misusing their tools or behaving poorly with others? What guideline and method would you follow as an arbitrator (and would want ArbCom to follow) in correcting/punishing abusive admins in cases that may come before you? Rama's arrow 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
   • I believe that administrators are people in whom the community has reached a consensus that they, their maturity, and their judgment, are worthy of trust and acceptance. On the other hand, it does not require infallibility. Administrators are often subject to greater stresses and hassling than regular editors, but are supposed to be able to rise to the occasion. Thus, to me, one of the most important factors is the track record of the admin. Someone with a good record who exhibits maturity, wisdom, and restraint where necessary, who "loses it" one day, should be treated differently than someone who exhibits a pattern of misuse/abuse. Personally, I try to hold myself to the highest standards, realizing that as an administrator, any blatant violation, or even perception of wiki-impropriety, would be magnified by how sysops are perceived. While I wish everyone would abide by that standard, we're all human and we all will make errors. In the case you bring, if the sysop has gone beyond "losing it" and it is now a pattern of abuse/misuse--I would tend to look at that strictly, as it is a violation of the trust afforded to that person. However, I would like to think that if the situation demonstrates that a good person had a bad time, that one can learn from ones own mistakes. Nutshell:Mistakes happen; Misuse/Abuse should not, and will be prevented. I hope that is clear, and I'd be happy to try and clarify if you feel it necessary. Thanks for taking part! -- Avi 21:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
3. I'm not sure if this is part of your job description, but what would you do to improve the enforcement of ArbCom decisions? What is your take on an ArbCom decision being read or not read as a precedent for similar issues that may arise? Rama's arrow 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Improving the enforcement of ArbCom decisisons is something that can be helped by all wikipedians, sysops and editors alike. We have Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Violations of ArbCom decisions should be posted there by anyone, and sysops who take action based on WP:AE need to be supported by the community. I do not think that there is something that the ArbCom should do; rather, a spirit of camaraderie between editors and a desire to make this encyclopædia the best it can be would help all of us ensure that decisions are enforced. -- Avi 23:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Regarding precedent, currently, ArbCom decisions are not binding future precedent, and I actually prefer it that way. Wikipedia is an ever growing and evolving community. What made sense for one person at one time when wikipedia was so big may not make sense for a different person three years and 4000 more editors later. Also, the members of the ArbCom are not appointed for life, but change over time. Common sense is common sense, and likely will not change. A sensible decision now would likely be followed in the future, but the fluid nature of wikipedia, its editors, and the ArbCom makes allowing the freedom to judge each case, in its time, on its own merits, very appealing to me. Thanks for participating! -- Avi 23:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from Dasondas

1. Avi, do you have the time for this? If so, how do you see it affecting the attention you give to your editing and admin activities? Granted that being a good editor and good admin are probably well-correlated with the probability of becoming a good arbitrator, how do you advise us to look at the trade-off to the community between gaining a good arbitrator and perhaps losing some of the effectiveness of a good editor/admin? Dasondas 06:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
   • In terms of available time, I have my big (and hopefully last) exam tomorrow, which should free up hundreds of hours over the next six months. Since becoming an administrator, I have found that I can devote less of my time to pure editing, as I have sysop responsibilities (WP:AfD, WP:AIV, etc.) I am certain that should I become an arbitrator, that my time for both editing and administrative work will decline as well. However, I believe that this is a worthwhile trade-off. Of course, everyone has a limited amount of time, that is what makes it so precious. Therefore, I have found my editing to be more focused; more "efficient" as it were. More importantly, I think that someone who is considered a good editor and a good administrator is someone from whom the community would benefit more as being an arbitrator. A person who demonstrates a good, fundamental understanding of how Wikipedia works, both from the trenches (editing and debating) and good judgement in the application of policy and decision making (the administrative side) is someone who can synthesize their experience to be helpful in the most delicate and controversial of cases. In my personal case, I have made more edits since becoming a sysop than before, and I have a sense of satisfaction at the work I have done, especially with verifying and updating citations, and I do not see that stopping at all. Thanks for dropping by and taking part in this process! -- Avi 14:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from Chacor

1. What is your opinion of ex-admins who have not voluntarily given up their sysophood? Do you think they should be resysopped at AC's will, or do you think that they should go through another RfA? What are your thoughts on the current re-adminship process for involuntarily-desysopped admins? – Chacor 11:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
   • I view Wp:RfA as a process by which the wikipedia community declares (or not) that they have a certain level of trust in an editor's judgment and ability to rise above his or her personal point-of-view, and they will use that judgment in a matter benefiting wikipedia as a whole. Therefore, I would like to see it dependent on the nature of the wiki violation and ArbCom resolution. More clearly, for violations that do not exhibit a misuse of community trust, I would like to see ArbCom make the de-sysopping a "temporary" measure, with re-sysopping possible through a future vote of the ArbCom after some interval of time. On the other hand, egregious abuses of community trust requires the community to return that trust, and should be a permanent ArbCom de-sysopping requiring the full RfA. Thanks for dropping by and taking part! -- Avi 14:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from Fys

1. I will be asking the same three questions to every candidate. 'Arbitration' is a process of dispute resolution. If the parties to an arbitration, after it has gone to the committee, manage to resolve the dispute or any part of it themselves, would you continue the case or that part of it? If so, why, and if not, why not? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Once again, there is no pat answer to this question. Yes, arbitration is primarily a means of resolving a dispute between two parties. However, sometimes one of the parties is acting, as it were, as a proxy for the wiki community. For example, a case involving possible abuse of admin privilege. The claimant is not just acting as an aggrieved party, but represents all of wikipedia. For it is in wiki's best interest to ensure administrators exercise their responsibilities with the good judgment that the community felt that they had. If it is seen that said admin is abusing that privilege, even if the two parties "make up", wikipedia itself may need the protection of continuing the process. Similarly when it comes to banning/long-term blocks. There the ArbCom must take into account the benefit to the wiki community as a whole; even if this one particular spat between two people is resolved. On the other hand, some cases are merely disputes between two people/groups that could not be resolved by any other of the methods of dispute resolution, and they are not "wiki-affecting" issues. In these types of cases, if the parties can come to an agreement during the arbitration, I see no reason why the case (or the part resolved) can not be terminated as succesfully resolved. Thus, I would treat each and every case on the merits and ramifications of that case. Thanks for asking and participating. -- Avi 20:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
2. What role do you believe private discussions between the parties should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
   • That parties to a dispute should engage in reconciliation is always important, and if they can do that directly--all the better. In general, the important point is the resolution, and the return of everyone to making this encyclopædia the best resource on the internet. If the parties hash out their differences off-line, through an intermediary or not, and post their resolve in the case, it becomes a similar situation to your question #4 (since part/all has been resolved), and I would handle it as I describe above. Thanks for the questions! -- Avi 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Take a look at Wikipedia:Probation. Under what circumstances should users who have not had any restrictions on their editing imposed, be removed from probation? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Probations are, or should be, applied with set expiration dates. The length of the probation should be commensurate with the violation/reason for the arbitration in the first place, e.g. a minor issue should not be getting a 1 year probation ab initio. Therefore, with properly and equitably assigned probations, I feel that there is no general need for early removal from probation. I would, however, be open for people with longer stretches (such as six months to a year) to apply for early removal if they have demonstrated adherence to both the letter and spirit of the probation, but more as an exception than a rule. Especially in that someone without restrictions on their editing should really be able to edit completely as if they were not on probation to begin with. Everyone of us should be editing that way; probation is a means to help editors who have exhibited a pattern of "forgetting" wiki policy, guidelines, and etiquette on a somewhat frequent basis. Thanks for dropping by and taking part! I'll get to your other questions later today, I hope. -- Avi 14:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from Newyorkbrad

1. This is a standard question I'll be asking all candidates. What do you believe can be done to reduce delays in the arbitration process? Newyorkbrad 16:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
   • That is a difficult question, because I would not want the arbitrators to sacrifice quality and thoroughness for the sake of speed. It takes time for parties to be notified. It takes time for the parties to formulate their statements. It takes time for evidence to be gathered. It takes the most time for the arbitrators to analyze and discuss each case on its merits. I think the more important issue is why is there so much arbitration to begin with? RfAR's should be a last resort. We have many other methods to help resolve issues. I believe that the optimal situation would be to have RfAr's reserved for the most difficult or widely-wiki affecting cases, and then with fewer cases on their plates, the arbitrators can devote more time per case and streamline the process that way. I understand that alacrity is important, and I think that devoting the necessary time is important, and would help "move" things along, but I would rather take more time and get it "more right" than take less time and render "worse" decisions. -- Avi 22:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Another standard question I'm asking everyone. If elected, do you anticipate being actively involved in drafting the actual decisions of cases? Do you have any writing experience that would be relevant to this activity? Newyorkbrad 03:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Yes, I anticipate being involved in drafting decisions, but not immediately. I usually prefer to learn from more experienced people first instead of jumping in without training. If elected, I would be a junior member of ArbCom and I think it would be prudent to see all the factors and parts of an ArbCom case before I starting drafting the decisions. As for writing experience, not really. The closest I have come to legalese drafting are the five-to-ten page actuarial pricing memos after the completion of a rating. I have edited organizational newsletters before, and have dabbled in short fiction, but that's about it. Thanks for asking! -- Avi 14:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from Nearly Headless Nick ^{L}

1. You were blocked for 3RR recently in August (its recent for a person who is going for ArbCom). Would you like to make things clearer for us? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 17:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Sure. At the time, I forgot that any reversion to the article is counted, and I had reverted one part of the article three times, and another one once. So I had thought I had not violated, but in truth I did, per “Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count.” At the point I realized that, I was already blocked, so self-reversion was not possible. I acknowledged that on my talk page (as you can see here User talk:Avraham/Archive 4#Israel and the UN. The blocking admin offered (on his own, via e-mail) to unblock me if I stayed away from the article for 24 hours. I said it was his choice, as I deserved the block (my only one that I can recall), but that if he were to unblock me I would refrain from editing the article for 24 hours. He unblocked me, and I refrained. Anything else you would like explained? Thanks for dropping by and participating! -- Avi 19:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) 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. (Question from — xaosflux ^Talk 03:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC))
   • Regarding Checkuser: Checkuser is a tool that needs to be handled very delicately and sensitively, as it really strips any veneer of anonymity from wikipedians. As such, it should really only be granted to those people in whom the community (or Jimbo) has shown extreme trust. I am a board admin/sysop in other internet communities, and have used the equivalent (phpBB and SMF each have their equivalent on the admin or mod panels) to determine the identities of trolls when necessary, so I understand both the need for respecting the privacy of others and more importantly, the abuse that misuse of IP information can cause. Wikipedia is adamant about respecting the security of identities of its editors, and I would be very loathe to summarily expand the Checkuser privilege beyond the Arbcom and those who currently have it, unless a significant and severe backup exists over a period of time at WP:RFCU. -- Avi 00:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Regarding Oversight: I think that the potential for abuse of Oversight is less than that for Checkuser, but the need for it is also less. The few times I have seen it in action, Oversight was performed (usually by User:Rebecca ) relatively quickly. With ArbCom elections occurring yearly, I think that the new members of ArbCom, together with the current set, should be enough to handle Oversight requests. However, if a significant backup exists, I could envision expansion of privilege to people with significant history and time in ALL phases of wikipedia (something like a bureaucrat plus), but that would be a decision that would be made IF the need existed. Currently, the high standards for Oversight seem appropriate to me. -- Avi 00:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from User:Shreshth91

1. What sort of arbitration activities have you been involved in, in the past? Have you been involved in any ArbCom cases previously? Do you have any experience in settling disputes? --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 05:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
   • On wikipedia I have not been a party to an RfAr as of yet, thankfully. Although not a member of the mediation committee or cabal, I do try and go out of my way to be the "cool head" in debates on articles. I think my many hundreds of edits on Talk:Circumcision and Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and even my recent edits on Talk:Naeim Giladi, to name a few, demonstrate my ability to act is this capacity. Further, in my previous real-life occupation, I performed counseling including marriage, divorce, bereavement, youth, teen, etc. Also acting as a mentor for youth/teens from difficult/broken homes. That kind of interpersonal reaction and mediation I feel helps me very much in understanding people and problems. Thanks for dropping by and participating! -- Avi 11:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from FuManChoo

1. You have repeatedly pushed an extreme pro-Israel stance in a number of articles. Are you going to continue promoting this point of view as an arbitrator and will it affect your arbitration decision?

Secondly, on Foreign Relations of Israel, you continually replaced this

According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Faced with sanctions, South Africa began to organize clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States, and it began a long, secret collaboration with Israel." although he goes on to say "A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant cooperation."

"South Africa and the affordable bomb". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 1994-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

with this

According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "... available evidence argues against significant cooperation."

The larger quote is more accurate and representative of what he actually says in the paper, rather than a misrepresentative sentence fragment. You never explained your actions at the time, despite repeated questioning. Can you explain your behaviour now?

You have also participated in a destructive revert war on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If you can't stand above revert warring on basic issues, which is wikipedia policy, how can you be trusted to be an arbitrator? FuManChoo 09:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

1. • Deut, is that you? . I think I have been very careful not to push a "very pro-Israel" stance as you calim, but to ensure that articles have all points of view that conform to WP:NPOV, especially WP:NPOV#Undue weight. As I make very clear in my nomination statement and almost all of my edits, each and every one of us has points of view. To deny that is to basically require wikipedia to be edited by a bunch of lobotomized automatons. That is why we have the guidelines and policies we do–to allow for editors of different philosophies, backgrounds, temperaments, and beliefs to be able to both co-exist as well as work together. One person's "cherry picking" is another's "reliable source", which is why talk pages are so important. I wil continue to edit articles in a fashion that I feel best follows wiki's guidelines and policies--even if that means that it makes some people feel I am biased one way or the other. To answer some specifics:
     1. I think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an example where two camps with strong opinions, each having significant support, managed to come to an acceptable compromise. Users LifeEnemy, Markovitch292, Amoruso, and myself eventually worked out a compromise, which was acceptable to most other editors, that handled the anti-semitic issues without using Category:Anti-Semitic people. Au contraire, the final outcome is a good example of how compromise and consensus can be reached, even on extremely contentious articles. Further, look at every one of my edits, and let me know where I treated somone disrespectfully, regardless of how I had been addressed and how my actions have been characterized. It is that type of "calmness under fire", ability to stick to policy/guideline and not devolve into ad hominem attacks, and restraint against any misuse of privilege that I think is something every arbitor should have. -- Avi 11:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
     2. Regarding Foreign Relations of Israel, please show me the diffs. It is possible that was in the context of a larger revert, and I do not remember it at this time, as Foreign Relations of Israel is not one of the articles I frequent. Although I do know there wa a concerted effort on the part of some people to add borderline and unreliable information about biological weaponry capable of ethnic discrimination (somewhat of a science-fiction type weapon as it was) to articles on Israel using sources that were not up to wiki standards. Perhaps that was part of it. Thanks for participating! -- Avi 11:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The diffs are all in the history, as are my comments to you at the time. I'm not going to do your homework for you. The fact that you can't even remember your own edits speaks volumes of your reliability.

One more question from me. You recently removed Eden Natan-Zada, an extremist who belonged to a designated terrorist organization (Kach) who shot down 4 civilians in cold blood from Category:Terrorists.

Given this outright apologism for terrorism how can you expect anyone to take your bid for arbitrator seriously and, furthermore, how do you sleep at night? FuManChoo 14:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• 1. You do know that the voting is not until December 1, at which time you may oppose to your hearts content, this section is for questions, not polemics and spleen venting .
  2. Secondly, regarding Eden Natan-Zada, please check the history. I removed him from Category:Israeli mass murderers, since you added him to Category:Terrorists. Category:Mass murderers says “This category is not to be used for terrorists”. I am not sure if Category:Terrorists is the proper cat or not, but one cannot be in both, as I stated in both the edit summary and the talk page, which you appear to have missed somehow. So, not only are you not assuming good faith, you are also engaging in personal attacks, and, to boot, have your facts completely wrong, which lends even more doubt to your accusations above.
• I have no problem sleeping at night; for you, I'd suggest warm milk (helps serotonin and melatonin release) and perhaps a relaxing bath. Feel free to Oppose when the time comes, but I think your own edits, your lack of adherence to facts, your egregious lack of civility, your personal attacks, your lack of good faith, in this and in what I suspect may be your other guises, imply that you have an issue with me personally, and perhaps all editors who do not adhere to your particular point-of-view, as opposed to my ability to function as an arbiter. I agree, someone with an agenda, which I am afraid you may possess, should be scared of someone who is not afraid to uphold wikipedia policy and guidelines fairly and accurately, which is what I intend to do. If you have any further questions, by all means, but please refrain from the personal attacks and polemics until the vote. Thank you. -- Avi 14:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you didn't answer my question again I'm going to ask it for a third and final time.

On Foreign Relations of Israel, you and your fellow pro-Israel partisans continually replaced this

According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Faced with sanctions, South Africa began to organize clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States, and it began a long, secret collaboration with Israel." although he goes on to say "A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant cooperation."

with this

According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "... available evidence argues against significant cooperation."

The larger quote is more accurate and representative of what he actually says in the paper, rather than a misrepresentative sentence fragment. You never explained your actions at the time, despite repeated questioning. Can you explain your behaviour now?

Here is a diff if you don't believe me [1]

If your edits now are so deceptive and misleading, how can you be trusted as an arbitrator?

Question(s) from ^demon

1. You were involved quite heavily in a dispute involving the article Actuarial Outpost around mid-May which I myself tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to resolve. You yourself have only been editing Wikipedia heavily since January. Specifically from editing, to an edit war five months later, to adminship less than two months after that, to now running for ArbCom...how do you feel you've matured as an editor? -^demon^{[yell at me]} 10:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Actually, I think I was guilty of assuming too much good faith in that incident. According to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, Disruptive "throwaway" accounts used only for a few edits can be blocked on sight and no checkuser is necessary. Each of those accounts is an example of this. It is almost as if my trying to assume good faith and engage in dialogue, "fed" the troll to the point of the issues that arose. I also know from the webmaster of the Outpost where that troll works and who his former names on the board are. This was someone trying to get revenge on the site through wikipedia, this was not a "true" content dispute. If the socks would have been blocked immediately per WP:RFCU, I believe the troll would have lost interest C'est la vie. I still prefer to risk such activity and attempt to first engage in dialogue, as sometimes even trolls respond well to respect--but not always. In terms of maturation as an editor, I think that being more involved in editing wikipedia as well as administrative duties has shown me that perhaps the single most important thing for editors of very different backgrounds to be able to work together is to maintain respect and civility for each other. For example, look at Naeim Giladi, an article where three editors of very different backgrounds have been able to put together an accurate, fair, and open account of a very interesting, and potentially controversial figure. On the other hand, the Outpost incident shows me that sometimes the law needs to be laid down, and that trolls who continue to act as trolls need to be treated as such (something about silk purses and porcine auditory extremities ). I have almost 9000 edits. In that time, contention is bound to arise. I think my record shows an extremely healthy respect for all editors, while maintaining a firm grasp of wiki policy and guideline. Thanks for participating! -- Avi 11:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo

1. Express in a short paragraph, using any particular issue/incident that you feel strongly about (or lack thereof) in the past, on why editors must understand the importance of the ArbCom elections and making wise, informed decisions when they vote.

• ArbCom is the option of last resort for the most difficult cases requiring resolution. An Arbcom ruling is one that should not be requested lightly, but when issued, needs to be upheld by all members of the project. Unlike editor, sysop, or even bureaucrat actions, there really is no appeal venue once an ArbCom ruling has been delivered, other than Jimbo. As such, it is in the wikipedian community's best interest ensure that the people selected are ones who can be trusted to make difficult decisions in as a professional and impartial way possible, with the best interests of the community first, second, and third. -- Avi 04:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Imagine. Say Jimbo grants you the authority to make, or abolish one policy with immediate and permanent effect, assuming no other limitations, no questions asked. What would that be?

• I do not have one policy (or lack thereof) that has been stuck in my craw for so long that the answer to this question is obvious. Every system of limitations chafes at times, but nothing comes to mind at this time. During the next month, should something occur to me, I'll be glad to note it here. Thanks for asking, and thanks for taking part! -- Avi 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

2a. Do you think it is a good idea to "shoot first ask later"?

• Do you mean in terms of vandalism, or in terms of people who disagree with me ? For the latter, I prefer a .454 Casull or a 16-incher. Seriously, please explain what you mean. Thank you. -- Avi 23:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

2b. "Shoot first, ask questions later", in other words mean for one to take drastic action first (e.g. WP:IAR), then trying to find all kind of means to justify the action later.

• No. I do not. I respect that without WP:IAR we may have become a stultified bureacracy (if we aren't already), but I believe that without a healthy respect for guidelines, we would turn into the largest flamezone in cyberspace. -- Avi 15:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive checkuser and oversight privileges. Have you read and understood foundation policies regulating these privileges, and able to help out fellow Wikipedians on avenues (e.g. WP:RFCU) in a timely manner should you be granted either or both of them?

• Yes, I have read the policies for those responsibilities and would be glad to help out fellow members of wikipedia. Specifically regarding checkuser, I have experience with similar tools on phpBB and SMF based internet boards, as a board admin/mod in other internet communities. They are nowhere near as large as wikipedia—a few hundred members at most—but the concept is identical in that the requirement for both sensitivity and discretion are paramount. -- Avi 02:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?

• No different than integrity, accountability, and transparency in real life. I have always tried to deal with people online as I would deal with them face-to-face. Now for more specific answers:

  Integrity

  Integrity is keeping true to one's word. Integrity is following through on promises. Integrity is to act as one preaches. Mistakes will be made as long as we are human, but there is a difference between the honest mistake and the abuse of trust. One thing I have always believed is that the sysop, bureaucrat, oversight, etc. positions are those of trust; afforded by the wikipedia community to those it feels would help the project grow and flourish. One's integrity is essential to fulfilling that role.

  Accountability

  Accountability is shared by all members of wikipedia. All editors agree to abide by wikipedia's policies and guidelines in order to take part in the project. Sysops agree to hold themselves to certain codes of conduct when performing administrative duties. Arbitrators agree to act in as professional, impartial, and courteous manner possible in performing their duties, and agree to make themselves available to perform such duties. The project elects arbiters whose judgment it feels is best suited for helping to decide the most difficult cases. Describing the reasons for ones decisions in an arbitration case (in general–see next section for more) would demonstrate their accountability.

  Transparency

  In general, reasons for decisions should be posted, as they usually are. Further, most often, the discussions about arbitration cases are also publicly available on various wiki pages, so transparency usually exists. However, there are times when the ArbCom must deal with people's (or the project's) personal data, or other legal issues, where there would be a problem publicizing this information. In those cases, I can understand the ArbCom's not publishing every fact about a case, so as to protect the security of editors and the project as a whole. Thanks for asking, and I'll grt to your other questions soon. -- Avi 01:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from 87.78.180.237

Avi, do you realize that many people would not want you as an Arbitrator? And that support of your fellow circumcision advocates like Dasondas are not exactly helping with this? -- 87.78.180.237 16:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please refrain from making specific references to other users such as Dasondas in this question area. If you have something specific to ask me, go ahead, but this is not a forum for pushing one persons point-of-view over another; it is to get to understand my philosophy and judgment, and to help you decide if I would be an asset as an arbitor.

• Regarding your first point—of course. I know that many people are afraid of someone who has a track record of closely adhering to wikipedia policy and guidelines, and is not afraid to take the appropriate actions per the wikipedia community. As for my personal beliefs, I think that an impartial perusal (not overview) of my edits and messages will show that although, like every other member of the project, I have opinions, I do not "foist" them on articles, but strive to ensure that all sides are represented fairly in accordance with the strength of the sources and permeation of the point of view in light of WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV#Undure weight. Will people feel that I cannot be a good arbiter because they disagree with my opinions? Unfortunately, I am sure that is so. I am afraid people will not realize that disagreeing with someone does not mean that the person is unfair or has bad judgment. People may tend to feel that the manners, etiquette, and temperament of someone is completely secondary from the opinion--just look at any political debate today. However, just as there are people who are more interested in the message than the messenger, and cannot see that the person may be an excellent advocate for the project as a whole, even if on an issue or seven they may disagree, there are people who do see beyond that, and every once in a while, when I get a message like this one, it renews my faith in the inherent underpinnings of this project, and that the many frustrating times are in the end worth it. I hope that clarifies the issue. Thank you for participating! -- Avi 23:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from Richard John

Daddy or chips? -- Sprinkles 16:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Huh? -- Avi 23:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from AnonEMouse

Warning: Most of these are intended to be tough. Answering them properly will be hard. I don't expect anyone to actually withdraw themselves from nomination rather than answer these, but I do expect at least some to seriously think about it!

The one consolation is that your competitors for the positions will be asked them too. Notice that there are about one thousand admins, and about a dozen arbcom members, so the process to become an arbcom member may be expected to be one hundred times harder. (Bonus question - do you think I hit that difficulty standard?) :-)

1. A current Arbcom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?

• • The purpose and scope of Arbcom is encapsulated in the following quote:

    The Arbitration Committee exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes.…The Arbitration Committee is the last step in the dispute resolution process — it is a last resort to be turned to when all else has failed. Other steps, including discussion between users and, where appropriate, mediation, should be tried first. The Arbitration Committee exists to deal with only the most serious disputes and cases of rule-breaking.

    — Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee

The role of the AC is to adjudicate, and bind thereto, individual parties to a dispute. As such, I do not think it is currently invested with the right to judge on a policy's status directly. However, in the case brought above, I do feel that it has the right to determine the level of consenus, or lack thereof, that was exhibited by the people involved in the policy debate.

…but the dispute here is that one party claims that this proposal has consensus and therefore is policy/guideline, whereas the other party claims that objections to the proposal have never been addressed and therefore it's neither consensual nor policy/guideline.

— Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy#Statement by Radiant!

This is a dispute between editors which has exhausted other forms of resolution. Thus, in my opinion, the AC is empowered to judge, based on its understanding of wikipedia consensus, whether or not a consensus was reached regarding the policy proposed. A subtle differentiation, perhaps, but an extremely important one. -- Avi 00:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?

• • Bureacrats are given the authority to give editors admin responsibilities if the community showed consensus. Similar to above, if there are two parties of wikipedians arguing over whether or not a consensus was reached in a discussion, being that this is an interpersonal dispute, the Arbcom should have the right to issue a finding on whether they believe that a consensus was reached. They may always refuse at their discretion. -- Avi 00:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?

• Yes. Because people are human beings, not computers. Anyone and everyone can have a bad day, and I for one would want to be considered on my overall experience and track record, and not have one incident "cherry-picked" for use as a pillory. People whose sole “contribution” is vandalism and the like are not engaged in helping build the encyclopædia, and should be treated as such. People who are actively involved in building the encyclopædia, in any one of the ways without which the project would not function as well or at all, should be treated with the respect and good-will that they have earned. Again, anyone can have a bad day, or infrequent bad days. Show me someone who doesn't and I will show you Mother Theresa. It is those who make a pattern and a habit of disruption, subtle or obvious, that need more swift and dramatic responses for the benefit of the project. -- Avi 00:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

4. If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.

• This is a community-built encyclopædia. Both elements are crucial, critical, and without one the other would falter. Content without structure is an amorphous useless mass; structure without content is a barren, empty shell. The encyclopedia without those that protect it and ensure that it is being edited in accordance with its principles would soon turn into a morass of useless data. Without data, the entire project is nothing.

• More importantly is that the application of question #3 here is not exactly appropriate, comments notwithstanding . Yes, one's contribution to the project will obviously set the tone for how the individual is going to be looked at. It does not mean that someone gets a free pass or an edge against someone else. The idea of looking at one's contributions is not to afford a "ranking", but to judge people based on a body of work, and not one incident. Often, when there is a dispute about breaking a rule/policy/guideline, and one of the parties has a history of breaking said guidelines, that party will have their actions judged in light of their past history. When two parties who both both contribute gainfully to the encyclopædia, each in their own way, are engaged in a dispute, then both should be viewed as valued members of the project, without negative baggage if none exists (as gainful contributors in some ways can also be a significant hinderance to the project in others), and the arbitration should proceed from there. In a nutshell, I feel that the syllogism that you are trying to build from #3 is flawed, and the answer to #3 should not have bearing on this situation. -- Avi 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

5. While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)

6. It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?

• Neither right nor wrong but acceptable. There is nothing here that requries a value judgement for "right" or "wrong". If one person enjoys writing legalese (based on their being a retired lawyer, perhaps), why is it right or wrong for that to occur? The only issue of right or wrong would be if the proper procedures were being subverted due to insidious writing or apathetic aribtors. I see no instance of that here. -- Avi 00:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

7. For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom?

• In general, I think that administrators would make better arbitors, because they are exposed to wikipedia janitorial duties (AfD/Vandal blocking/etc.) and so understand the workings and application of wikipedia policy and guideline more thoroughly. They also can understand the stress that both editors and administrators can be under, as they act in both capacities. The function of ArbCom is not equivalent to the legislative branch of government; they are not supposed to represent any faction in wikipedia. Their job is to issue rulings on what they perceive is the proper application of existing policy, guideline, protocol, consensus, or unwritten understanding to a given case. It is not directly a trust issue either. While editors of whom it has been shown that they have not gained enough of the community's trust at a given time to become an admin are likely not going to obtain the trust to be an arbitor, there are plenty of non-admin editors who I am certain are worthy of such trust. However, I feel that the interpretation of policy etc. is better by those who devote much of their time to its application. -- Avi 00:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)