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 16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your dedication to this project and i am sorry to hear about the outcome of your nomination. To answer your question i'd mention three keywords which summarize the main traits of an 'effective' arbitrator as i see it... 'neutrality', 'fairness' and 'patience'. No one can ever achieve those traits w/o knowing and mastering how to listen to all points of views effectively and w/o prior prejudices. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

(Just to be clear. Some candidates wondered if my question was "aimed at them". I'm asking all candidates the same generic question; it is not aimed at anyone.)

Thanks, Wanderer57 17:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question Wanderer57. Well, i've followed some of the RfCs and i must say, as many would say, that the RfC process is a bit blurry in terms of the outcome since it is not binding. As for the degree of fairness involved, i'd say that rating them is subjective and dependant on the input of participants. In general, most RfCs know a huge participation of supporters and opponents of the subject of the RfC. Are RfCs fair? It depends on the input of the participants and the involved parties who, in most cases, are the same people you'd find arguing at articles' talk pages. In general, i personally consider RfCs as an essential process. They are not binding but their content is essential for further dispute resolution process.

To summarize a bit... An arbitrator must read, understand the basis of a RfC and listen further to new opinions and events which would happen between the RfC and the ArbCom case. RfCs are not judgments of a jury but just an enlightment for the Arbitration process. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

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

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?

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

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?

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thanks Heimstern. My philosophy as an admin on that is simple... An edit warrior should be given chances in order for them to undertand that they are a 'problem' and then just enough time to change their behaviour. Most edit warriors accuse other users and admins alike for being the 'beast'. When you find yourselves in such a situation you only can consult and check if there's any other admin that the edit warrior would consider as 'neutral'. Very soon, the edit warrior would start accusing the other admin as a 'beast' and that is where he'd get to understand that they are the problem. Then, everyone knows the rest of the story... An ex-edit warrior who becomes a fine and normal editor or a banned/restricted one. As for the degree of ArbCom sanctions i'd say that a prior scrutiny of the editor' edits is essential before any judgement is being made (in fact it has always been always the case - ArbCom evidence and workshops pages). An editor who spread h/er edit into different areas cannot just be banned but restricted and banned from the area where s/he is problematic at. If the edit warrior has more to do w/ blind reverting than anything else, 1RR parole can do the job- at least for some time. To ban someone one should be sure that the behaviour of the user in question got no remedy at all. After all, the community still get more power than the ArbCom when it comes to dealing w/ edit warriors. In case the community cannot then we'd apply the above ArbCom philosophy.
2. Incivility is a major concern of the project. Users who never discuss w/o using uncivil terms against fellow editors cannot be tolerated. Probably, the ArbCom still lack real measures to deal w/ that but probably it would be one of the areas i'd help. I prefer to keep 5 civil users helping the project than 1 'prolific' editor who is being uncivil all the time. There were many cases where many good users left the project because of someone being uncivil. I say a plain "no, that is unacceptable" and probably a kind of parole would do the job before being banned if they would persist and defy it.
3. Blatant abuse or misuse of powers, inappropriate uses of alternate accounts and incivility traits are the main reasons i consider enough for an admin to be desysopped. Temporary suspension can only be applied in case the admin shows no traits of frequent misuse of the tools.
4. I consider the community to be the core of Wikipedia. I believe the ArbCom should involve as many users as possible to participate in the appeal process. I've already discussed this point below in response to User:east718 here.
5. For me "cases' issues were no longer current" is not a valid reason to dismiss a case and close it w/o any final decision or remedy unless all parties agree to that. We all know that some cases serve for others as a basis for a decision and dismissing one because X user is no longer active is inappropriate. There may be a day when a similar case would appear and it would be a waste of time dealing w/ it from the start. On the other hand, if the community could resolve the case itself then fine, if not then i totally disagree w/ closing a case w/o a resolution.

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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 22:17, November 30, 2007

1. Thanks east718. Yes. The ArbCom takes too long to be close cases. I've just answered User:I's question here. Prioritizing cases is essential. I also think that the decision about which case to prioritize can be easily discussed between arbitrators.
2. Not one in particular so far. I'd say the opposite where i had blocked 2 users for one week back on August before the ArbCom decided their 1 year ban 3 months later. I'd say that my decision of July and that of the ArbCom of October were based on the same principle. Maybe i am not aware of all the ArbCom cases but if you got one in mind you can mention it and i'd give you my clear opinion on it. However, there's only one small concern which comes to my mind...it is the process of appeals. It is still ill-organized and this is an area where i'd help at by proposing that all involved parties in the case should be present at the appeal to express their opinions. There were some cases where people were permitted to get back editing by the ArbCom w/o informing users who were involved in the case in the first place.

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).
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?
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)
4. a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
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?

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

Thanks for your questions Rschen7754.

1. Edit or move warring is unfortunate and most of the time users who keep warring ends up being sanctioned. Re WP:RFAR/HWY, i'd say the remedies of the ArbCom are rightfull and quite clear. The log of blocks and bans shows indeed that some party has continued to be disruptive and i am wondering why User:SPUI is still with us here. As for WP:SRNC, i'd say that i really appreciate your bold action in creating such a page and i encourage you to further discuss that at the talk page if the issue is still unresolved.
2. a) The main purpose of a WikiProject is to better organize and all related articles. However, there are many other implicit purposes such as centralizing discussions, gathering further opinions, views and advices. b) No. WP:OWN is quite explicit on the matter of ownerships. c) Yes. We actually do the same at WP:MILHIST... See this and this particular style guide.
3. Yes but only after discussing it and reaching a consensus. You should argue that other WikiProjects works the same somehow and wait for reasonable voices to support you.
4. a) If you are only informing people whom you think they would support you then that is canvassing. If you are informing all involved parties, including people whom you think they would oppose, then it is not canvassing. It is about the intention and not the action itself. b) That would include projects newsletters but not IRC which is not subject to Wikipedia rules.
5. a) There are many examples given at types of vandalism. In case of doubts, you'd contact the user in question and see what are their reasons. If you still have doubts, you'd contact an admin to have their opinion. I'll give you an example of User:Mariam83, an indef blocked user. This edit is not vandalism but this one is. As for your scenario, i'd say that if the mess is done in a regular basis, then i'd consider it vandalism. b) Vandalism should be rolled back. In case the user persists, a short block must be in order. If they come back reverting using sockpuppets regularly, then we can protect the article. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committee? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? I (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I. The main concern is the time it takes for a case to be resolved. I've mentioned it at my nomination and believe that prioritizing important issues first is the solution to that. A large scale conflict case involving many editors and articles (especially hot topics) are to be treated first according to the LIFO principle while individual cases which deals w/ less editors and articles are to be treated under the FIFO system. Arbitrators can easily decide which case to prioritize. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom practice:

1. To what degree should ArbCom look at and treat administrators differently from non-administrators? Article writers from other-task WPians?
2. Why do so many nationalist conflicts reach ArbCom? Why so often involving lots of editors? Does ArbCom need to look at these topics, articles, or editors differently in some way? Is there a link between content and behavior?

Views/experience:

1. The Military History project seems (to this outsider) to have far fewer disputes than one might expect (see previous question). Is my impression correct? Can you provide any insight into this? And, finally, what work have you done within the project?
2. If you could by fiat change one WP rule, policy, guideline, or practice, what would you choose? Why?
3. Can you point to a dispute (could have been at ArbCom or Mediation, or even on a talk page) that you've gone into (as an involved party or 3rd party) with a strong opinion, but had that opinion change in the course of discussion?

ArbCom Elections:

1. Last year the community nominated what looked like a solid bunch of Arbitrators. Yet 10 months later it turns out that several had very spotty levels of ArbCom activity. Do you think that this was at all predictable? And if so, how? Do you think you would serve for a full three year term? Why?
2. 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?

Thank you. Jd2718 04:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jd2718.

ArbCom practice:

1. I believe there is no 'degree' at all. Wikipedians are the people who write and edit articles for Wikipedia. Administrators are Wikipedia editors who have access to technical features that help with maintenance. Both categories of users are essential to the survival and the functioning of the encyclopaedia. W/o editors we'd not have been able to reach more than 2m articles and counting. W/o admins we'd not have reached its smooth running. We simply judge people on merits and not on status, if we can call it that way. In the formicidae world, ant-hill cannot be built w/o the involvment of all 'categories' of ants; same for us here.
2. I think Wikipedia is very dependant on real life events. Users come to edit because they know a bit or a lot about a subject (i.e. nationalist conflicts) or simply because they heard/read about it on the news. Not all users see those events w/ the same eye which is very normal. Some editors are more sensitive and get very emotional. Some are more objective while others are more pragmartic. There's absolutely no link between content and behaviour. We got hot topics edited by reasonable editors who respect the etiquette and the rules of the game. It is more a matter of behaviour. At the end, the ArbCom got no authority over content and it is mainly behaviour which is subject to ArbCom judgements.

Views/experience:

1. I totally agree w/ you and we are glad that the Military history WikiProject could become a lead example to the rest of Wikipedia projects. In fact there are many reasons why there are less editing conflicts involved. One of them is the expertise of its participants. Many editors used to come to the project talk page for advice and consulting. We do not enter into much detail but there's often someone more knowledgeble about a subject in question who would go mediate or fix the problem at the article talk page. This is an example of what i am talking about. One more reason is the clarity of the project guidelines and structure which facilitates better and effective communication. As for my contributions to the military project i'd say that part of my tasks as a project coordinator is to technically help maintaining it plus the fact that most requests are directed to the coordinators. Apart from these administrative tasks, i've created and maintained the Portal:Military history of Africa and was behind the creation of the African and Ottoman military history task forces. I've also tagged and assessed no less than 3,500 military history articles so far.
2. It would be definitely WP:SOCK. Sockpuppetry kills the spirit of this collaborative project and users who spend most of their times messing up w/ that policy should not be given more than necessary chances to stay here damaging the project. We still see many users who has been caught sockpuppeting more than a few times but are still into it. There should be a firm limit to that undesirable and unwanted practice.
3. There's was situation where i had supported a community ban after giving my reasons but changed my mind in the course of discussion and became a mentor of the user. Here's the archived case. It should be noted that the user in question is still under mentorship.

ArbCom Elections:

1. Nothing can be predictable otherwise there would be a conspiracy of playing w/ the election process. However, i am not sure about arbitrators w/ 'spotty levels'. Maybe you are referring to some of the former arbitrators but that is a story which most of us are well aware of and many discussions have dealt w/ that. Trust is the main issue here and no one can mess w/ that and still be welcomed to remain an arbitrator or an administrator. If it is not about trust or abusing powers then 'spoty levels' would be considered normal (small mistakes happen) and unless it is a habit it can be discussed and fixed smoothly w/ the help of the community. So, to answer your last part of your question, i'd say that if i lose the trust of the community or abuse my powers i should simply be de-arbitrated and de-sysopped. It doesn't matter if it would be 1 day or 3 years.
2. I totally agree. One cannot judge or teach if s/he has never been at the other position before. In real life a judge is also a regular citizen. A governor cannot govern from behind his desk. A football coach cannot efficientely feel players sentiments and understand them if he's never been a player himself. He would only ask a tired player to score when the player is totally tired. Those were some parallels and i believe they represent well the situation in Wikipedia. In brief, i'd never support an arbitrator w/ a few edits even if he is a professional lawyer or jurist. As for my edits, i'd say that they are well-spread ones. What i am proud of is their neutrality and abiding to policies and guidelines especially on hot topics (ETA) and high-profile articles (Van Gogh) among others.

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 17:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SilkTork. Anyone can edit Wikipedia including IPs...except accounts of users or IPs who are troublesome (persistent edit warriors, sock and meatpuppeters, vehemently uncivil users or those who threaten others legally). For the time being, i personally still see no need to work under a secrecy basis to expand and protect the project. There are many problems related to the issues you mentioned but we have to know that the project is still in the structural phase and working under the above-mentioned principle could bring negative results to the project for the time being. Maybe, nobody would wish that, when problems increase we'd be bold and see if protecting the meta-editing activities by registering rather than by sleuthing could be adequate. In brief, we have to observe the process more and see what to do if problems persist. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Thanks Irpen for your interesting questions.

Mailing list

Why not let all admins read it? Admins are trusted members of the project and therefore i'd see no problem if admins could read it (preferably uninvolved admins). I am a supporter of transparency.

Secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators

Anyone is free to contact any arbitrator. However, charges should never be brought secretly and therefore i'd strongly support an amendment to the rule. I, personally, would not base my judgement on a private email from an involved user unless it contains hard evidence coupled w/ personal info. I remember i did it on the Digwuren case where my and their personal info was a key evidence (IPs and locations of both of us) and that was an exception as you mentioned.

Recusals

If it can be done technically (prohibiting recused arbitratoirs from reading Arbcom-L) then i'd agree. If it would not be technically possible, i'd say that recused arbitrators would still read it but prohibited from giving any single opinion or view on the case.

Community oversight over the arbitration policy

Wikipedia belongs to the community and if there's a debate to let the community handle the Arbitration policy, i'd be glad to support it strongly.

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

I feel that some of my anwers (mainly the one concerning the mailing list) have been misinterpreted or maybe because i wasn't very explicit. I must explicitly state that the privacy of anyone is sacred. My answer to the mailing list is so hypothetical and suggests that in case the community wants to get it public i'd not oppose but that would be limited to uninvolved admins and to non-private info. These info should not include CheckUser data under any circumnstances. It should not include users' personal names, locations, professional info, etc... The info that i'm talking about would contain only and nothing else more than info related directly to editing Wikipedia. In case the community would not care than i see no reason why the mailing list info can be divulged. A couple of months ago, there was a case where a respected user was caught gaming the ArbCom probation. I must say that earlier this year i had started an RfC on him (his way of editing) and got to know later on (months later) that he had another account and was on probation. This info was discussed through the mailing list on September between arbitrators and subsequentely the user in question was informed. In other words, i knew about that 1 or 2 months before and though the editor and me disagreed most of the time i respected his privacy until the day everybody got to know via the ArbCom and after being asked it was the time for me to say what i had known w/o giving any detail about his private life. On another case (Sri Lankan/LTTE conflict) i got to know so very private info about User:Netmonger and User:Lahiru k. I received the info from the users themselves. Till this day, i am still the only one who knows about that, not even fellow admins who helped solve the dispute w/ me. I was also succesfull to convince the other disputing parties that what i know about those users are not info to be communicated to anyone on this planet. Never. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Wiki context, NPOV and SPOV share the same basis and principles. In many cases, scientific theories are debated in real life and what Wikipedia must do is to present both of them relative to verifiability and reliable sources. It is not about giving equal validity but to inform readers that there exist other theories. Scientific articles must give the whole picture. Let's take the shape of the planet Earth as an example and say that its shape is oblate spheroid as it is a verifiable fact but not mentioning that there are people who have believed that earth is flat would be a mistake.

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking the following of the current top 10 frontrunners in the race.

ArbCom has the power to overrule any decision made by Jimbo in what he refers to as his "traditional capacity within Wikipedia".[1] Under what circumstances would you overturn a decision made by Jimbo? This isn't meant as a trick question - I would be perfectly happy with a simple answer like "I'd consider overruling a decision he made if I thought it was a bad one". But if you'd like to go into more depth or consider some past Jimbo decisions as examples then I'm fine with that too. Haukur 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If i believe Jimbo made a mistake (after checking and verifying all the facts surrounding the case) i'd have no problem in overruling it but not w/o discussing the matter w/ the ArbCom members and hearing Jimbo prior to that. My judgement can be wrong and therefore i'd make sure to consult others before taking any misguided action myself that would make the situation even worse. The case of Zscout is a good example. In that case, i'd have simply consulted the other members and contacted Jimbo and get their opinion and clarifications. If the ArbCom members consider my judgement correct and Jimbo's action is misguided i'd overrule the decision. Jimbo would be informed of the overrule and my reasoning. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of ArbCom, would you place more emphasis on content or behavior? For example, in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds case, there is voluminous discussion on whether SevenofDiamonds is really MONGO, but no discussion on what got MONGO banned in the first place. If SevenofDiamonds=MONGO, then this is a behavioral problem but doesn't have to be a content problem. If SevenofDiamonds edits were reasonable (I have not researched it) would it make a difference?Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour. Arbitrators are not more experts on the subjects than editors themselves so emphasizing on content would be pointless. Arbitrators can also carry a POV toward a subject and therefore their judgement could be non-neutral. Behaviour can easily be judged but content no as it is subject to POVs. Actually i was the one who had indef blocked SevenofDiamonds before unblocking him for the reasons i stated on his talk page. I am very familiar w/ that case and should simply say that if SevenOfDiamonds == MONGO than MONGO should be banned for gaming the system, not only for the "Good hand, bad hand" scenario but also for wasting hundreds of people's time. SevenOfDiamonds is now banned for being the indefinitely banned User:NuclearUmpf. We are building an encyclopaedia and surely have no time to deal w/ games. If MONGO is found guilty of being 7ofDiamonds then he should be automatically banned as a sock of an indef banned user. If not, no arbitrator should delve into dealing w/ content. To clarify further, note that some people would confuse excessive edit warring and reverting as a content issue but it is more about behaviour. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. See how confusing it is? It is alledged that SevenofDiamonds=NuclearUmpf, not MONGO. Thank you for your answer. I only chose this case because I was looking at 1 or 2 ArbCom cases. The question was not directed at you specifically. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no confusion at all :) What i did is that i analyzed and responded to your scenario. I've already said that i am very familiar w/ this specific case and know that according to the findings of fact that it was "more likely than not that SevenOfDiamonds is a sockpuppet of NuclearUmpf" (please refer to this). In that case, there was no evidence suggesting 7OfDiamonds==MONGO and my response above answers explicitely your question. Nowhere i meant to say they are all the same. I hope there's no more confusion. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without sticking your neck out too far, can you point to any recent arbcon case that you think was decided wrongly? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to give you my personal opinion on the content of the THF-DavidShankBone's case but the remedy "Case dismissed due to inactivity of one of the participant" is unsatisfactory. First 'inactive participants' can get back editing anytime. Second, the case would have served as a precedent for any potential similar case in the future and this would not be possible now because the case was closed w/o any practical and visionary remedy. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking this question to top ten candidates as of 02:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

Jimbo's decisions vs the community support

The final results of elections may or may not fully reflect the community support expressed by the vote tally but are subjected to Jimbo's approval, that is he makes the decision taking the community's opinion expressed during the election only "under advisement". Although it may seem a surprise to many, Jimbo is free to not follow the tallies and he may not necessarily appoint the top slice of the candidates according to their approval percentage. The historical precedents suggest that he may again appoint not strictly according to votes, that is skip the candidate with higher percentage of support in favor of the candidates with less approval rating but more to his liking (or if you want to be less cynical, the candidate on who community is making a "mistake that Jimbo would correct.")

If this happens again in this election and, hypothetically, you would be the candidate promoted over the head of another candidate who got the higher support, would you accept such promotion? Also, would you accept the election result in general if the candidates that are switched are both below your level of support that is such switch would not affect your own promotion? --Irpen 02:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Jimbo would base his desicion on the principle of "making Wikipedia a better place" (using reasonable arguments) then i'd respect that decision regardless of my personal satisfaction/dissatisfaction with it. The bottom line is that we are all here to make an encyclopaedia and not to defend anyone's personal and individual interests. It is Wikipedia which comes first... certainly not me. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a somewhat similar line to Risker's question above, what is your position on the following?

• A policy page has had a very active discussion for many months. All sides (loosely termed 'pro-change', 'anti-change' and 'issue-specific') of proposed changes have made their cases back and forth numerous times. The 'pro-change' group is mainly users, with a few Admins. The 'anti-change' group is mainly Admins (including those who helped write the policy over the years) and a few users. The 'issue-specific' group is a mixed collection of users and Admins, but mainly users. All three groups constitute around 40-50 people total, per announcements on the Village Pump and related policies, to garner more widespread community involvement either way.

1. After numerous discussions, and comments over a span of several days to several weeks on specific issues, what should constitute a consensus? 60%, 75%, 90%, or unanimous approval?
2. If around 75% agree to a change, is it appropriate for Admins (especially those who helped write the policy) to revert changes and protect the page from further edits against their approval?
3. Is it appropriate for 6 or 7 Admins to more or less block changes to a policy through protection and reverts, when very active discussions have been ongoing and the majority of those participating constructively (not just saying "No" or "Oppose" without constructive comments) agree to changes?
4. Would it be appropriate for such a policy page which does clearly have a disputed section to have a tag in that section stating that section is under dispute and to participate on the talk page?
5. Should policies solely dictate acceptable and unacceptable content, behaviour, etc., or should they also define Wikipedia-specific terms and definitions (without stating so) that conflict with usage in different disciplines, or should such terms and definitions be more appropriately suited in a guideline linked to and from the policy?
6. Do you agree that policies are meant for enforcement or 'enforceable actions', while guidelines are meant to give guidance?

wbfergus ^Talk 15:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your questions wbfergus. Unfortunately, I have a single concern though. I believe you are referring to an ongoing Arbitration case and therefore i think it is inappropriate for me to give you any opinion about the matter for the time being... That is to avoid any kind of disruption of the process. However, i'll just point out again to the fact that the ArbCom deals mainly with behavior while encouraging consensus building with an hypothesis of "no legal issues being involved." -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I needed to take my wife to a Dr. appointment this morning, so I did not have time to get around to cancelling my questions to all the candidates. Thank you for noticing this in the meantime and taking the effort to reply. I Felt as you do, that answering these questions in light of another user filing the ArbCom and yet another user filing an RfC against that user makes these questions inappropriate now. Thank you again. wbfergus ^Talk 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, User:FayssaIF, have been completely unfair to me. You made demeening and sarcastic comments about me on AN/I without knowing the facts, because you saw my name a lot so therefore I must be bad. You judged me superficially on your perception of the frequency of problem editors reporting me.

Did you know that a ring of six sock puppets reported me to AN/I for three months before I even knew there was an AN/I? The ring of sock puppets harassing me was caught after more than six months of constant harassment, and then only by accident.

I have over 35,000 excellent edits, I have worked on many feature articles, I have many barnstars etc. and too many DYK's to count. I have never edit warred, I never revert.

I worked on the Psychopathology article not realizing the editor that owned the article was reverting everything. Else I would have stopped sooner. I stopped as soon as I realized what was happening.

You took the other user's side, sympathizing with her retirement when she had retired in September of 2007. Did you know about her history of constant disruption? Please look at my record of editing before you judge.

My sock puppets were caught by a vigilant ARBCom person, who recused and took on that problem instead. He was very observant and did his homework. I do not think an admin who does not do homework and makes instant demeaning judgments about another editor on little information is good for ArbCom. The fact you closed the case early on AN/I means the other person got a 28 day block.

I am asking you, do you consider that you did your job adequately in the above described incident? Is there a reason to think you would do a better job on ARBCom? Mattisse 17:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer copied from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/FayssalF

Mattisse, could you guide me to which 'sarcastic comment' i made against you?

I am totally aware of your great contributions and must thank you for that but there's no justification for edit warring Mattisse. Why couldn't you accept my proposal to discuss further your content issues w/ the other side? What about the third party opinion? Why could the other party go request a 3rd party opinion?

Of course i noticed that Zaereph got retired before and i even tried to ask him/her to have a break since the retiorement notice was posted at the userpage. But do we have any authority to ask people to remain retired? No, we just can't do that.

You make it seem like if i blocked you or couldn't listen to you. I was fair to both of you. Haven't blocked anyone, though you both were edit warring all day. I wanted to see you both handling the situation peacefully and without any fuss. It didn't work Mattisse. You insist on emotions and i totally understand that but Wikipedia has less to do with emotions. It is more about being objective. Do you remember calling other respected editors (as you) 'hyprocrites'? Does that help? Not at all. This is a collaborative project and all of us must find better ways to work with all kind of users. I believe you and any other side can do that but how i really don't know. At least i tried to show you the way to Wikipedia:Third opinion since it dealt with a subject that only a few contributors know about.

I've done my job adequately as an admin (been fair to both of you). I encouraged discussion and third party's opinion before taking any administrative action. I haven't taken any action indeed. No judgement at all. I really fail to see where i failed and where i'd fail to be a 'good' arbitrator.

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a community that produces and maintains a (still-nascent) encyclopaedia. This community has particular social and political structures that define it and that, presumably, affect the character, quality, and depth of its encyclopaedic output. Can you briefly summarise some political and social aspects of the Wikipedia community that you consider important or noteworthy, that perhaps need to be challenged or developed? How does the structure of Wikipedia encourage or inhibit access to decision-making and issues of power/control? Or does any of that matter? And what are the implications for the Arbitration Committee and its members? Pinkville (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guarantee liberal democracy if you are to become an Arbcom member. I believe that democracy is a key to resolving issues since it can guarantee that both sides can speak freely and that both sides have agreed with the solutions for the issue.

Offended? You're free to contact my talk page.. -Pika ten10 (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question Filipno Pikachu.

ArbCom members can only guarantee justice. According to WP:DEMOCRACY, Wikipedia is "not an experiment in democracy or any other political system." Wikipedia encourages consensus building instead. I'd rather say that it is consensus building which is a key to resolving issues since it can guarantee that both sides can speak freely and that both sides have agreed with the solutions for the issue.

Offended because of what? Not at all. In fact, i appreciate the question and find it very interesting indeed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for being late with this question

1) Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they? 2) What is the role of ARBCOM with respect to policy creation? --Blue Tie (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]