Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Hot Stop

There seems to be a lot of complaints about arbcom and how it runs. Whether it's because the members aren't open in their discussions, preferring to hold them via email or IRC, or because it takes them far too long to decide cases, there's one simple solution: vote 'em out. If you were dissatisfied with the way a contractor built your neighbor's house, you wouldn't hire them to renovate yours, would you?

Who am I, you ask? I'm something this committee needs. I'm an outsider. Unlike others who've spent years and years on the committee, I've only been editing since earlier this year. Why is this a good thing? Because I don't suffer from hivemind, and I'm not part of the borg like others running. The committees never had a true outsider serve, and now's the time.

Now, a little about me. I'm from New England and have a college degree. In real life, I deal with people. Everyday, normal people like those who read this encyclopedia. I have created two articles at this point, and worked on others. But my main work on here is at WP:ITN/C which is about as frustrating as arbcom is made out to be. I know I'm not the most active editor, but neither are some of the current committee members up for election.

If elected, I intend on representing the "little people" who end up in front of arbcom. Currently, only administrators serve on the committee and I don't think that's fair for non-admins; real life juries aren't composed solely of lawyers and other professionals, they have normal folk on them too.

One thing I'd push for is transparency, real transparency. I would ask that all "off-wiki" deliberations be released some time after a case is closed (provided all confidential information is expunged). And, if elected, I promise to only serve a single two-year term.

Yes, I realize I was recently blocked. But I was blocked for calling a spade a spade. I believe in being honest with people, and that's something you, the voters, should value.

And now for the disclosure: I've never edited under another account or made IP edits, am of legal age in my home state, and have no problem identifying myself to the foundation (and committee) if needed.

Thank you. Hot Stop talk-contribs

• Hot Stop (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2011 candidate: Hot Stop Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

1. Skills and experience:

   a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?

   b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.

   As mentioned in my statement, I deal with people everyday. This can only be a plus. I've never been invloved in an Arbcom case, though. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you?

   In general, I would come down on the strict side, but that wouldn't always be the case. One of the key factors in my decision would be the user's track record. If a user had a long serious of blocks, they'd face tougher sanctions than someone who messed up for the first time. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. ArbCom and policies: ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
4. ArbCom and article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.

   As 3&4 are essentially the same, I'll answer both together. Arbcom shouldn't be in the business of either making policies or solving content disputes. I'm aware that issues with policies (such as when different ones seemingly conflict with eachother) might come up in a particular case, but in those instances the committee should from an RFC to see what the community thinks. Ditto for cases where a content dispute is involved. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. ArbCom and motions:

   a) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.

   b) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?

   c) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2011 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.

   An arbitrator proposed 7 motions in lieu of a case (they aren't to pass) permalink. That to me is excessive. To me, a motion should only be used for relatively simple decisions or for clarification or other matters related to past cases. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:

   a) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?

   b) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?

   c) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?

   d) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?

   e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?

   A) No, private data shouldn't be retained after a case is closed.

   C) Yes, arbcom needs to be more transparent. There's no real good reason for arbcom going behind closed doors unless they're discussing private data.

   D) I must admit I didn't follow the leak and thus can't comment on it. However, having the leak in the first place does show why private data shouldn't be retained. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   E) I'd prefer that my name not get out there, but it's not a deal breaker if it does.

   Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. Division of responsibilities:

   a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?

   b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?

   A) The WMF shouldn't interfere with arbcom or community actions.

   B) I hate to throw around legal terms, but the community should have original jurisdiction in all situations. Ideally, this would include removal of administrative rights, but the community has yet to reach an agreement on how to handle that. Arbcom, on the other hand, should only have appellate jurisdiction, meaning they should only review cases after the community has acted, or in situations where the community defers to arbcom.

   Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.

   a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

   b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

   c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?

   A) I'd say yes, there are likely people who feel their contributions or tenure here make them "above the law," so to speak. But no one, from the lowliest IP editor to the everyday editors to the admins and so forth should be above the law. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   B) There have been several examples of factions (nationalistic, religious, etc.) ending up in front of arbcom. So yes, they have been a problem and will likely continue to be, as it's unavoidable that people with similar views won't start coordinating with eachother. There community needs to set better rules as to what's acceptable or not.

   C) In some ways, yes. It's hard for new editors to get involved in the community because there's a Byzantine set of policies, guidelines and such to deal with. Also, there are too few female editors which can and does lead to a lack of coverage of women's topics. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9. Reflection on 2011 cases: Nominate the cases from 2011 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.

   I like their decision in Cirt and Jayen466 to desysop Cirt. While he seemingly didn't abuse the position, it's reasonable to ascertain from the findings against him that he would've lost the trust of the community. At that point, someone's ability to hold such a position should be removed.

   On the other hand, in the Racepacket case, and admin was only "admonished" (given a slap on the wrist in layman's terms) for making inappropriate blocks in regards to WP:INVOLVED. From the proposed decision page, it doesn't even look like the idea desysopping was brought up.

   Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10. Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?

    As mentioned in my statement, I'd prefer deliberations of cases and motions that occur through email to be released (after scrubbing of private data); the people who elect us have a right to see what we really think. Also, I support term limits. I don't think anyone should serve more than two years consecutively. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, I would change the procedure for accepting new cases. Instead of the current "net four" rule, I'd replace it with a simple majority. As the committee will be reduced to 15 members, the "net four" rule means three-fifths of arbitrators could vote to accept a case, and that wouldn't be enough if the others opposed (a 9 to 6 vote in favor wouldn't be enough). Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And another. In light of recent events, I would propose that no arbitrator be eligible to take a paid position at the foundation or any of its subsidiaries for at least a year. This is to prevent sitting arbs from a having a potential conflict of interest while they are interviewing/applying for the position. Arbitrators are supposed to serve the community, not WMF. Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question:
#:A:

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide; thus, not answering specific questions will affect my recommendation. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those. Please note that question 3 has drastically changed from what it was in past years, though.

The first 9 questions are short answer questions. The last question is a bit open-ended.

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?

   A:Like most cases, it's unacceptable. Allow me to comment more generally here, but I think part of the problem is how arbcom deals with evidence. There a 7,700+ words on the evidence page (plus all the diffs), and I doubt any arbitrator actually was actually able to parse it all (which I'm not faulting them for). I think it would make more sense if instead of allowing editors to dump evidence on the page, they instead question the parties involved. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?

   A:To some extent, yes. But there are times when WikiProjects standards clash with community norms. For instance, WP:HOCKEY calls for automatic use of diacritics, which many people (myself included) see as conflicting with WP:UE. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. An editor has made many productive edits to articles on Wikipedia, including several featured articles. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators / experienced users tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?

   A:Considering consensus is a pillar, I'd say it's a huge issue. While it's great to have people think independently, we can't have "cowboy" editors running off and doing their own thing. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?

   A:I think mentoring is a good thing. Allow the "incompetent" user to latch-on to someone who knows better for a period of time. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?

   A:Depending on the circumstances, yes it could. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Do you believe that "it takes two to tango"? Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?

   A:Eliminating them entirely, probably not. But obviously if there's a dispute between two users, it's not arbcom's job to simply ban the one who acted worst. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?

   A:When the community is unable to come to a solution on their own, as a last-ditch appeal of community action, or in cases where abuse by an admin is alleged (as the community seems unlikely to adopt their own process for removal of those rights). Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?

   A:In general, only in instances where the user had a track record of bad behavior. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9. If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?

   A:Yes. I wouldn't be running if I didn't plan on it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10. What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

    A:I think there's some issue with "stagnation." Simply put, it's generally the same people who are active, and they can sometimes drown out newer voices. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rschen7754 23:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restraining aggrieved parties in emotionally charged scenarios is central to the Committee’s role, and arbitrators are in principle exposed to legal action by those parties in a real-world jurisdiction. It matters little whether an action is launched or merely threatened, and whether it is unreasonable: the costs for an individual arb to forestall a default judgment in a foreign court would be considerable (and I believe it’s not hard to transfer an order to the courts in one’s local jurisdiction). The risk is greater because as volunteers we can’t be expected to provide professional mediation as an intermediary between wiki and real-world judicial processes—mediation that might head off litigation in the first place.

Given the WMF's annual income of some $20M, what is your view on whether the Foundation should:

1. set up a process for engaging and coordinating professional mediation of disputes that have the potential to morph into legal action against arbs (where requested by the Committee and where the Foundation believes the arb has acted in good faith); and
2. offer legal indemnity to arbs after either a litigious party has rejected an offer of WMF-funded mediation or after that mediation has failed? Tony (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer:Regardless of the income at their disposal, the WMF has an obligation to protect it's volunteers from legal actions. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Question: I am not discouraging you to run based on your 800-ish edits nor am I suggesting an outside perspective wouldn't be beneficial. However, I think it's important that these benefits include a level of experience that demonstrates that an Arb can competently interpret Wikipedia's policy, guidelines, essays, and 'unwritten rules' that are in compliance with community expectations and consensus. What experiences have you had that have forced you to analyze and conceptualize Wikipedia policies (et al) and how has your synthesis been affirmed by the community?

   A:While I agree I'm not the most experienced candidate and I'd lying if I told you I'm familiar with every policy, guideline, and so on, in the end almost all rules are drawn from common sense. WP:V boils down to "don't put stuff on an article you can't defend" for example. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Question: As an arbitrator, your role in the last step of the dispute resolution process is key to maintaining Wikipedia's collaborative atmosphere. You will be expected to judge other editors on their conduct toward each other. Given your recent history of extreme incivility [1] [2], what about your record do you think qualifies you for such an influential position in the dispute resolution process? causa sui (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   A:I wouldn't consider the latter edit to be uncivil. Sure, I swore, but that in itself isn't considered incivility (and the user I was referring to has been noted to be more uncivil on ITN than I). But as I alluded too in my statement, I consider telling the truth to be a positive. Frankly, I don't need to sugarcoat what I say and I tend to be rather blunt. I hope that the voters see that as a plus also. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Follow-up: While you say in your statement and in your answer to my question that you feel bluntness and plain speaking (including telling other editors to "fuck off" and that they "look like children") are values that you think qualify you for Arbcom, you felt that these edits [3] [4] [5] by HiLo48 (talk · contribs) merited notice at WP:AN/I. Given the double standards that you have set for your own behavior, why should we expect that you will be impartial in considering and ruling on user conduct questions? causa sui (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   A. In regards to HiLo, he's close to being the first user (that I'm aware of) topic banned from ITNC for making comments similar to the ones you linked to about American editors there. As for whether I could be impartial, I'd recuse myself in situations where I felt I couldn't be. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Question: Do you believe that G5 should be abolished or continued to be enforced throughout the project? Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   A:What a random question. Anyway, I believe it should be enforced; banned means banned. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over ArbCom cases from the past few years, it is clear to me that many times, editors involved in the dispute being heard in a particular case use the Workshop page as a platform to continue their disputes. These Workshop posts tend to take the form of 'finding of facts that the people on the other side of the dispute have committed heinous acts, heavy sanctions for the people on the other side of the dispute, and people on my side of the dispute get off without even a warning' (it's usually less transparent than that, but barely).

1. Do you agree with my above conclusion, in part or in full, or not at all? Please explain your reasoning.

   A:I agree. I looked at some of the cases, and it appears to be the parties just bickering amongst eachother. I don't think it's productive at all to the goal of resolving the dispute (in fact, the arbs rarely even bother to comment on proposals). Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. If you believe that problematic activity occurs in the Workshop pages, (even if you don't agree with my statement), what solutions would you propose?

   A: I'd scrap them all together. Maybe instead of allowing anyone to make proposals, limit it to questioning the parties. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a still open RfC at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. As evidenced at this request, there are numerous admins and editors who have serious doubts over the Committee's unblocking of what is suspected, with a high level of good faith and WP:DUCK evidence, to be a banned disruptive sockpuppet. Do you think it is appropriate that after nearly a month and a half:

1. the community is still none the wiser as to what exactly lead this sockpuppet to be unblocked? Your answer to this question is important, as the Committee has not indicated that there were any privacy concerns requiring this unblock to have been dealt with in secret.
2. of being asked to identify themselves, those responsible for approving the unblock have still yet to do so, let alone follow a Committee members suggestion a month ago that those responsible for the unblock should be commenting?
3. there is still no clear answer as to why an editor is told by the Committee that future concerns in relation to the editor should be taken to the community, with a heads up to the Committee (I still have the email from 24 September as evidence of this), whilst the clarification request is indicating that the Committee will deal with all future issues in relation to this editor? Despite the email from 24 September saying that the editor in question is not under any "protection" from the Committee, once could reasonably assume that this is the case, or...
4. the Committee refuses to explicitly acknowledge that it may have erred in this case, and given lack of Committee response turn it back to the Community to deal with?

The last question is especially important as there are numerous uninvolved admins and admins who have previously dealt with the user in question, who are too "afraid" of going over the Committee's head, even in the face of evidence; if one assumes ownership of a problem as the current Committee has, then surely the current Committee must also assume ownership of their actual ownership of the problem possibly being part of said problem. If one looks at the answers thus far given at the request from arbiters closely, one can see that there seems to be a theme amongst arbs to suggest that the Community block the editor for other current issues; all the while the Committee avoids answering Community concerns at the actual clarification request. However, the other issues have only strengthened the opinion of sockpuppetry amongst other members of the Community.

I'm going to answer these together because they sort of run together, but having reviewed the request I think it's unfortunate that they haven't provided an explanation outside of referring to private data. I think the members of the BASC ought to explain why they didn't feel the similarities in editing patterns was enough evidence, especially since several other arbs called for them to comment. I don't however, feel that they necessarily erred in the unblock itself, but the I find the real issue to be the lack of a proper explanation. I do think it's reasonable that the committee be notified against any user they've taken action with though.

I know you didn't specifically ask for a remedy, but I think in this instance it would be proper to move to a "full" case. I was able to dig-up this case from 2007 where the committee determined (with only behavioral evidence, I believe) that a user was sock.

- Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although you are not a currently sitting arb, I would also request a response to the following:

1. if elected what will you do as an individual on the Committee to prevent such things from occurring in the future? that is, of course, apart from permabanning me or banning me from requesting that the Committee take responsibility for its actions :)
2. absent the declared issue of privacy concerns, do you think that BASC should publish all of its decisions with a clear rationale on wiki for Community review?
3. how important do you think it is that editors should willingly admit when an error is made, fix it, and then move on?

I promise I'll get to these questions soon, but at the moment I'm not going to get into specifics regarding the situation. But I'll take a shot at the latter questions:

1-Being one voice out of fifteen in any situation makes it hard to be heard or enact anything substantial, so I think you'd need to elect a whole new slate of candidates. The only thing I could promise is to be a pain in the ass to anyway who wants to get in the way of openness, transparency, and common sense.

2-Yes, I support that idea. It would compliment my previously stated idea of releasing off-wiki deliberations publicly once private data is expunged.

3-I think one's ability to self-identify and self-correct their mistakes in important in all aspects of life, including Wikipedia. But I also feel one shouldn't dwell on another's mistakes.

- Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You write "There's no real good reason for arbcom going behind closed doors unless they're discussing private data." If elected as an Arbiter, will you immediately present, in public, a motion to release the archives of the mailing list, redacted such that they do not vioalte the privacy of users? If such a motion were presented, in public, would you vote for or against it? Why?

Yes, I'd propose/support such a motion. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.

   A: If there were a case that directly related to Massachusetts politics, I'd recuse because that would represent a conflict of interest with my real-life work. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case before you have opined (beyond "waiting for (more) statements" with no indication of leaning), how will you respond?

   A: I'd ask for them to indicate why they felt that way. If I agreed with them, then I'd recuse. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case after you have indicated your support, opposition or leanings, how will you respond?

   A: I'm sorry for not getting the question, but is this referring to after voting on accepting a case or after voting on the final decision? If it's the former, I'd basically do the same as if I'd been asked before voting to accept. But if it's the latter, I'd probably not recuse. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. What are you feelings regarding a sitting arbitrator being a party to a case? Is there a conflict of interest? Does the level of their involvement in the events leading up to the case matter?

   A:Definitely a COI, regardless of their involvement. I'd ask them to recuse themselves entirely, and that includes not discussing the case on email lists. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?

   A:I'd propose a motion saying X is recused/inactive on the case and will not participate. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?

   A:They should refrain. First, because the case might end up before the committee, so not getting involved would avoid a COI. Second, because it would carry the connotation that they're acting in their capacity as an arbitrator. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?

   A:I'd say yes for similar reasons as the last answer. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. In what circumstances can incivility be excused?

   A:It shouldn't be excused, but there are different levels of it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize for the late questions, I've only just gotten the time to write them. If you see a question that you've already answered or one that is similar, please proceed to answer it, you may think of a new way to explain your idea/answer. Please answer all of these questions, they will weigh in heavily when I vote.

1. Can you please elaborate on what you answered above as to what needs changing? Why does that need changing? Why would that benefit the community and the committee?

   A:

2. Given that the committee doesn't create policy but only enforces policy set-forth by the community, do you believe it would be allowed or acceptable for the committee to set a policy if it sees a need for one?

   A:

3. An editor, who has been extremely helpful to the wiki and it's surrounding community (many good articles, helps clear backlogs, etc.) one day comes to ArbCom for breaking a rule, do you/would you discount the offense and let the user off with a "warning" not a full ban because they have a good history? Why or why not?

   A:

4. How do you know what your limits are when dealing with a case? (No, I will not define "limits", please use your interpretation of what I am asking.)

   A:

5. If you could sum-up your experience here at Wikipedia, in one word, what would it be and why? (This question has more meaning to it than you think, I care more about the "Why" part though.)

   A:

Thank you,  JoeGazz  ♂  22:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'd just like to acknowledge that I've read these questions, but am declining to answer since you've already passed judgment on me. Also, they're redundant and a waste of any reader's time. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. In your statement, you've commented that it would be good to have at least one non-administrator on the Arbitration Committee. However, in deciding cases, ban appeals, etc. it is often necessary for arbitrators to utilize their administrator tools, particularly the ability to review deleted pages or revisions. If elected as an arbitrator, would you (1) request/accept temporary adminship for the duration of your term so that you could obtain this administrator right (note that this would require a chance to current policy), (2) have an RfA before your term begins, or (3) work as an arbitrator without this information and rely on the arbs who are administrators to provide it when necessary? (Please note that I am not either supporting or opposing here the idea of a non-admin arbitrator, but identifying a practical issue that would need to be addressed if a non-admin were elected.)

   Seeing that arbitrators are offered checkuser and oversight tools automatically, I'd say being given admin tools automatically would make sense (as long as they were only used for committee activities, such as viewing deleted edits). But, if the community had previously rejected this idea, I'd probably just go for an RFA. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor creates multiple accounts to edit articles in different subject areas, not realising that this is in breach of WP:SOCK, how should he or she be dealt with? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About six hours left for voting? Is my question worthy of your attention? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]