Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/The Fat Man Who Never Came Back/Questions for the candidate

I am The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. Ask me anything.

General questions

Questions from Giggy

1. a/s/l?

   late 20s / yes, please / Brooklyn, NY

2. What is your opinion on the apparent divide in editors who focus primarily in mainspace, and those who focus primarily in project space? What would you do to help ease conflicts that come as a result of clashes between these editors? This is a deliberately open ended question.

   I find the characterization of a "divide" unnecessarily crude. It's not difficult to find thoughtful editors whose contributions overlap into both namespaces, project space editors who care deeply about content, and writers/contributors who remain uninvolved in wikipolitics but who value the efforts of those who work tirelessly behind the scenes on their behalf.

   I do, however, have very little patience for the contingent of bored administrators and hangers-on who congregate at WP:AN/I and torment and discourage some of our best writers, using our "rules" as bludgeons rather than vaguely utopian (and occasionally misguided) ideals. Administrators are in place to support and encourage our best volunteers—to motivate them, to remove obstacles and give them room to work. Imagine if Stanley Kubrick had created and donated 10 full length masterpieces to a volunteer-run library of "free movies" and wished to donate 10 more, but a resentful and low-level "administrator" of the library found Mr. Kubrick to be a difficult, megalomaniacal prick and had him expelled him from the project before he could finish his work. It's safe to say that that administrator's services would no longer be required.

   With the exception of aggressive/sneaky POV pushers and shameless self-promoters, any writer of beautiful, well-informed prose would have a friend on the Committee in The Fat Man Who Never Came Back.

3. What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?

   I think it's unnecessary. If someone has been banned for a truly egregious offense (say, uploading child porn or threatening users with harm in RL), we should block his sockpuppets promptly, but to reverse his correction of one of my many typos would be overkill.

4. Pick one arbitration case opened in the last year that contains a final decision with which you disagree. How do you think the case should have been handled, what different proposals would you have made, etc.? Again, somewhat open ended.

   The SV-C68-JzG case, or whatever the hell it was called, was a debacle. The community begged their elected officials for even the smallest reassurance that their extensively articulated concerns were being addressed, and the Committee responded with a contemptuous silence for four months. To add insult to injury, Committee members blasted the "peanut gallery" for expressing their displeasure (however shrill we may have been) at the lack of progress.

   At the very least, I would remain connected to the nice people who elected to me and would encourage my colleagues to publicly, promptly and openly discuss their thinking on The Workshop page. Newyorkbrad sets an admirable example for this sort of openness.

   Should a wikimiscreant begin trolling or spamming the proceedings with bizarre tangents and unhelpful distractions after being warned not to do so, I would thank him for his contributions and ask a Committee clerk to boot him from the court room. I would try to cultivate a sense of organization and dignity and would grant our clerks considerable leeway to enforce these ideals.

5. Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.

   I adore writers (and will fight hard for them on the committee), but I'm not an "author" myself. I'm very pleased with my work on the great Texan Ima Hogg. I engaged in offwiki sweet-talking to procure a high resolution lead image from the nice people at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, and am responsible for the April Fool's day mainpage blurb. Every word of it is technically true, but it received mixed reviews. I copyedited and rewrote much of the featured article Strapping Young Lad (beautifully researched by metal enthusiast User:Gocsa). I also excel at irony, snarkiness, surreal humor, implausible picaresque narratives and rhetorically pwning and shaming the many bullies and blowhards that make Wikipedia miserable for regular people. Elonka can provide diffs for most of these zingers, upon request.

6. Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?

   Sure. I'm eligible, just as you are. I plan to give cogent reasons for supporting/opposing and hope to inspire others to vote similarly.

Thank you and good luck. Giggy (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever, Giggy.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions added via the global question list.

Questions from Sarcasticidealist

I'm repeating a couple of questions I asked on User:MBisanz's excellent voter guides; those of you who answered there can feel free to copy and paste your answers from there.

1. To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?

   With a few exceptions (3RR, for example, is clearly defined and easy to follow), Wikipedia's "policies" are malleable, vague, confusing and contradictory. I admire "civility" and "Neutral point of view" as ideals to uphold, but not as "policies" to enforce with a heavy hand. A hostile, punitive environment can only discourage our generous volunteers. The better question is which editors are persistently or egregiously degrading the quality and prestige of our project? Such problematic editors should be shown the door, not because they are guilty of infractions and must be "punished", but because the integrity of our encyclopedia must be maintained.

2. What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?

   Get rid of ex-Arbs. Should a committee member wish to tap the vast experience of Jayjg or the sagacity of Fred Bauder, nothing is preventing the Arbitrator from doing so independently, at his or her own whim. But for Pete's sake, don't make communicating with them a requirement.

3. At least one candidate has committed to being "open to recall" in much the same way as administrators in Category:Administrators open to recall. What is your view of the wisdom of this, and do you see yourself making a comparable commitment?

   Pseudo-formalizing such a commitment is an invitation to a semantic/procedural melee, as some of you may have observed earlier this year. I expect those who vote for me to trust I have the good sense to step aside the moment I appear to be bringing the project (which I dearly love, despite its vast shortcomings) more harm than good.

I echo both the thanks and the best wishes of the above questioners.

Thank you.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from LessHeard vanU

This follows from the various attempts this year at addressing the means by which Administrators can be desysopped, none of which has gained sufficient traction.

1. Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

   I would make it a primary focus to identify and demote incompetent administrators and would urge my colleagues to accept and speedily decide cases alleging clear-cut abuse of sysop privileges. My high tolerance for perceived "civility" infractions plummets in cases where the uncivilized party happens to be an administrator using his or her tools or position to bully a well-meaning user in a content or project-related dispute. These admins will be toast. Furthermore, whether I am elected or not, I will vigorously support WP:AMR or, frankly, any other scheme empowering the community to easily remove "the tools" from problem administrators.

Thanks for considering the above, and all the best in your endeavour.

A delight.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from PhilKnight

1. In what situations would you recuse yourself? Obviously, I'm not asking for a generic answer, but instead I'm genuinely interested in what subject areas, or conflicts involving which users, you would recuse yourself. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   I have a small number of wikifriends with whom I converse regularly offline as well as 2 family members who edit. Naturally, I would disengage from any case involving their (hypothetical) antics. I have indulged in my share of testy sniping (and been the target of the same) on talk pages, but I have had no protracted conflicts with any users (unless you count some sockfarms I uprooted, like User:Jvolkblum). I would likely (depending upon the issue at hand) recuse myself from arbitration concerning the Reference Desk or certain BADSITES, since I frequent both venues.

   No other content or policy areas present significant conflicts of interest for me (though I really like to read about basketball players and cured pork products). On a loosely related note, I would find it helpful if arbitrators would clearly state why they wish to recuse themselves, rather than merely noting their recusal. I would freely volunteer this information.

2. Imagine there is a case involving an editor who had been pushing a scientific racist viewpoint, and then another editor describes them as racist. Then an uninvolved admin blocks the second editor for a personal attack. How should this be handled?

   Closing my eyes now. Queue harp music and swirly/blurry visual effects. Scientific racism should be vividly described by our encyclopedia, but anyone who editorially promotes such a distasteful, discredited point of view brings our project into disrepute. Calling said promoter names is not helpful, but it is a red herring, and any administrator who would "punish" a volunteer over such name-calling should be roundly slapped with a fleshy mahi-mahi. If the block was indicative of a pattern of poor administrative judgment, the admin should be unceremoniously desysopped and invited to reapply via regular means.

Question from WilyD

During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally). While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:

1. Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over a regular editing issue? Are there any special considerations? If it is not appropriate, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?

   In general, administrators' edits should be held to even greater degree of scrutiny than those of other established editors. Administrators who violate 3RR should be blocked in a heartbeat. I'm skeptical of civility/behavioral blocks in general and would not encourage blocking an administrator (or anyone else) over cursing or name-calling (but would enthusiastically support his/her desysopping if rudeness/poor "customer service" skills were an ongoing problem).

2. Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when? If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?

   Blocking another administrator in the middle of a prolonged tool-enabled rampage should not be discouraged, but to block a colleague for misusing sysop tools once or twice in the recent past would make little sense; anyone issuing such a meaningless block should be politely disabused of his or her cluelessness via a simple talk page note.

   Irresponsible admins should have their sysop privileges (not their editing privileges) revoked or suspended. Currently the only paths to removing adminship are through the Committee or through Jimbo. I would fight to shift this power to the community, but until such a proposal gains support, I would make every effort to ensure the Committee hears and promptly responds to cases involving misuse of "the tools."

Questions from Mailer Diablo

1. Say you are given the power to implement or abolish one policy on Wikipedia by fiat, with immediate effect, no questions asked. What would that be?

   Just one? How about eliminating the thrill of vandalism/defamation by turning on flagged revisions. See WP:FLR and WP:FRFS.

2. Hence or otherwise (of Q1), should ArbCom be in the business of creating new policy, amend an existing policy, or abolish any policy as a result of any outcome of a case? If so, should the community be consulted on such matters beforehand?

   The Committee is in a unique position to definitively interpret the ever-changing and contradictory mishmash of compromised ideals that constitute our policy. This position should be freely exploited to declare certain policies inadequate or unworkable and then to suggest better alternatives. In my view, the ArbCom has a community mandate to propose specific and meaningful reforms, and once declared, should work hand-in-hand with the community to engender support and implement them.

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?^(AC/IRC)

   The Committee should support active steps to sever any quasi-official ties between our encylopedia and these chat rooms. I am not against the informal use of IRC channels to offer technical assistance to new users and have met several friendly and knowledgeable Wikipedians on the help channel. However, the use of IRC conversation to plan and coordinate administrator action (e.g., blocks or AfD closures) is inconsiderate at best, abusive at worst. IRC channels should be relegated to the same wholly unofficial, independent status as offsite message boards, Skypecasts, private emails, and phone conversations.

4. "Change We Need" and "The same old Washington that's broken" is a favourite mantra for candidates running for office, and that includes this election. Would you, and how would you reform ArbCom? And how can editors be sure that you will stay true to your promise?

   I am thoroughly appalled by your U.S.-centric outlook! I'm going to slap you with one of those "does not conform to a global perspective" templates. Please refer to my candidate statement as an answer to the first part of your question. Concerning the second part, please pull up a chair while The Fat Man explains life to you: we can never be sure that our elected officials, family, business associates, lovers and friends will honor commitments they have made. To be regularly disappointed by those around us is a painful but ordinary part of the human experience; I suggest you follow your gut and place your faith (and your support) in candidates whom you feel are unlike to mislead you or to timidly retreat from promises made.

Questions from rootology

Hello, thank you for running for the AC election! Good luck, or our sympathies are with you, depending on certain points of view! I'll be asking everyone these same questions.

Questions:

1. In regards to the massive "omnibus" case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, do you think bundling it all together was helpful to Wikipedia? Why, or why not?

My position on this spectacularly poor idea is well documented. James F showed poor judgment here, but his colleagues bear an even greater responsibility for actively or passively supporting the mess he made.

2. On the same aforementioned Omnibus case, the question came up here of impartiality in voting by the seated Arbiters. It was shown there that a seated, voting arbiter in the case was unwilling to support "subjective" findings that all the users were valuable contributors to Wikipedia, even ones who have created multiple Featured Articles (to the point of being leaders on the all-time list for most Featured Articles, ever). Should someone be seated as an Arbiter, unless they are always capable of being impartial in cases they choose to not recuse from? Why, or why not?

Although recusals are a handy and scrupulous way of preemptively removing an Arbitrator's bias from the equation, even non-recused Arbitrators remain human and cannot be expected to be perfectly impartial. Therefore, if an Arbitrator wishes to unveil his or her bias during a key moment in the proceedings, such revelation is best accompanied by a persuasive argument why his or her bias is reasonable, well-founded and beneficial to the project. Glibly declaring that Parties A are valued, while Parties B are "vexatious" without even an attempt to address the exhaustive evidence of "vexing" behavior on the parts of Parties A betrays the feel of a chummy insider network and a depressing lack of intellectual and adjudicatory rigor.

On a related note, FT2 has raised the concern that I am open in my sympathy/bias toward our best and most qualified article writers. Yes, I will tenaciously stand up for strong editors who have been abused or have received inadequate support. I will not lazily declare that Arbitration participants who happen to fall into my favored group are "valued" and suggest that their opponents' contributions are on the same order as vandals[1], while ignoring reams of evidence to the contrary.

3. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia community controlling Arbitration Committee policy, and the AC following the framework of policy that the community sets out for them in how to conduct business?

Due to its size and diversity, the "community" has not historically excelled at agreeing upon clearly defined and easy-to-follow procedural frameworks. Nevertheless, the Arbitration Committee should be responsive to specific proposals for novel, streamlined methods of dispute resolution and to fix processes identified as broken. Narrow the focus of your question, and I can give you a more specific answer.

4. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia Arbcom elections being totally owned by and controlled by the community of editors? As in, as how it is on other language Wikipedias--elections are done as straight votes/consensus, with the leaders being seated based on that alone, subject solely to the will of their peers.

Is this a roundabout way of asking if I like the idea of Jimbo meddling with the popular results and cherry-picking his next crop of Abritrators? Naturally, I do not. I greatly admire Jimbo as an entrepreneuer, but I wish he would rise above the notion that Wikipedia's interests are best served by a gaggle of his friends.

5. Do you think an Arbiter should be placed on the Committee without a clear endorsement/supporting majority vote of the community they will be serving during the election? If yes, why? If no, why?

I support seating the top 7 candidates in terms of percentage of "support" votes, unless:

• One of the top 7 candidates received a high percentage of votes in support, but an unusually low number of votes overall (i.e., a large number voters abstained)
• Candidates near the bottom of the top 7 did not receive a simple majority of support votes(this seems unlikely, given the high number of candidates to choose from)
• A reasonable suspicion of fraudulent voting arises

6. You get to set a mandate, one sentence in length, for policy on how the Arbitration Committee will work--it could be AC policy, AC elections, AC responsibilities, mandates--anything and everything. No one can overrule this change, not Jimbo, not the other AC members, not the WMF board (so long as it's legal, of course); no IAR exemptions, and it is the Law of the Land forever in AC matters. What is it, in one sentence of 15 words or less?

I would not unilaterally impose such a harsh and inflexible rule on the Committee and, by extension, the community, even if I could.

7. Please rank these in order of whom the Arbcom serves and answers to, in order from first to last (the party who should have the most power over the AC goes first, the one who should have the least power over the AC goes last:

a) The Community

b) Jimbo Wales

c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee

d) The Wikimedia Foundation

Feel free to explain your ordering choices and your rationale behind them, if so inclined.

d) The Wikimedia Foundation's servers are host to our every conversation/discussion/decision. If they want to pull the plug or kick us out of their house, who are we to stop them?

a) The Committee is the community's mouthpiece; their current "power over AC" is currently limited to electing the members they feel would represent the project's interests; this power might be further increased by providing a means to forcibly remove Arbitrators who have lost the community trust; I would be eager to hear suggestions on achieving this end (e.g., mandatory shorter terms; "impeachment", etc.)

c) Committee members should not be discouraged from devising new approaches to Arbitration, as long as their actions remain transparent and responsive to community concerns (see my answer to your question 3)

d) Jimbo should continue to focus on his day job.

Thank you, and again--good luck. rootology (C)(T) 00:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your sometimes difficult questions.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

Note to respondents: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so. Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.

1. Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:

   Nothing is "correct in all aspects," you Lego-loving lugnut. We didn't even have a real "BLP approach" until we got smacked with that Siegenthaler scandal a few years back.

   You see, Lawrence, editing wikis is just so goshdarned fun and addictive that it's too easy to user overlook the reality that, given Wikipedia's sky-high ranking in nearly every Google search, an editor could easily affect someone's reputation or career, or just plain ruin their day with a few clicks of the mouse. And we're not talking vandalism; we're talking plausible but deeply embarrassing or incorrect information that might not trigger Mr. Huggle's suspicion and go unnoticed for months. Let's make it at least a little harder to do this.

   a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.

   If an article is causing not-particularly-famous person distress, why leave it up? Spite? For the public good? I suspect that the majority of BLP victims don't want us to take their bio down altogether at first; they just want us to get the information "right," or to remove the hurtful information. However, if the OTRS team or administrators are unable to maintain an adequately policed article, junking or permamently stubbing/protecting the article (whichever the subject prefers) article is the only decent thing to do.

   I just found an old exchange on the admin noticeboard that speaks to this problem:

   • Says the concerned IP editor wishing to have an error-riddled article about his sister, still a legal minor and a somewhat obscure actress, taken down: i was told in email that her biography page was to have incorrect stuff removed asap, well i am trying to do that but a few people are fighting with me. Not coincidentaly, they are the same people who have had control of her website on here for years and have riddled it with misinformation. I, We, would like the page removed. My sister is a minor, the misinformation on the page could be considered dammaging
   • Says our helpful administrator in response: "Look, at this point I don't care if you're the crap entering her toilet. You're not going to get the article deleted just on your say-so, and your belligerence has only gotten you an extended block."

   What a wonderful world.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

1. b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.

   If a not-really-notable figure wants his/her article deleted, just do it—no reason to waste time attempting to reform arcane and contentious AfD processes. If, on the other hand, your goal is to have less BLP articles overall, a better angle would be to raise the notability bar for BLPs. When possible, I avoid sticking my nose into the world of AfD; those guys are weird (please vote for me, guys; you know I'm just kidding).

2. Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:

   a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?

   I don't understand the difference. Content is governed by policy. My candidate statement says I will use my immense girth to promote policy reform from my lofty ArbCom throne, and I stand by that statement. Will anyone listen or care? We shall see.

   b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?

   Which actions are you referring to (stop being so vague!)? Badlydrawnjeff is the main one that springs to mind. That was a landmark decision, setting a clear precedent that our encyclopedia aspires to be something more than a knee-slapping repository of YTMND-style for hijinks at others' expense. Disclaimer: I love YTMND-style hijinks and really miss Badlydrawnjeff (I'm sad that, given his extraordinary contributions, the his case is permanently attached to to his name), but it's sometimes ArbCom's job to be the wet blanket, and they should act as such more often.

   c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.

   I can't change Wikipedia policy. All I can do is keep beating that drum and make stern recommendations, confident that my infinite charisma, popularity, and cult following will inspire others to jump on the bandwagon and see the error of their ways.

3. It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?

   Sure, I agree with that. The lack of progress and agreement within such a large and diverse community can be frustrating. I'd be willing to at least try all kinds of wacky new approaches—for example, creating committees or even cute little elected parliaments of respected editors that, after hearing discussion, would place binding votes on certain types of big questions. Would that create new problems and new bureaucracies? Yeah, but I'm just brainstorming here; let's hear your brilliant plan. The point is, we (the community, as well as ArbCom) need to encourage bold new approaches that would limit some of the needless, fruitless and circular arguments/discussions that sap our time and joy and distract us from writing great articles.

4. Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom;l; in this matter?

   Flagged revisions are great! Yes, we should implement them; setting the default view to sighted, certified/vandalism-free versions would be an excellent start and would instantly flummox the majority of vandals. Do I think the "the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this?" Are you kidding me? The majority of editors don't even know what flagged revisions are or haven't duly considered their immense and exciting utility. ArbCom doesn't have the means to flip the switch on, but Arbitrators are visible and respected members of the community and should use their influence to convince others to implement flagged revisions sooner rather than later.

5. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.

   a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

   The problems of pseudonymity are endemic to the Internet, not just Wikipedia. I empathize with those who perceive that Wikipedia is gradually devouring the Internet, and that no one can see who any of us are! A move toward disclosing our identities would greatly increase the prestige/perceived accountability of the project.

   b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?

   Many of our greatest, most responsible and most prolific editors wish to continue editing anonymously, and the last thing I wish to do is alienate or drive off these wonderful writers. That being said, I would not oppose the implementation of a "Yes, that's really me!" system similar to that used on Amazon.com and other sites. Making this feature optional for editors over 18 and required for certain others (Arbitrators or even admins) would go along way toward selling the idea that it's "cool" and rewarding to edit under your real name.

   c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?

   The Fat Man loves his gays (and if you met him in person, you would assume he was a bit queer himself) and dislikes the use of the term "outing" to refer to anything other publicly disclosing someone's sexuality. So let's not call it that, hmmm? I disapprove of administrators/beauracrats/oversighters bending over backward to help someone hide from their contribution history—it's one of the few tools we have for tracking accountability (albeit not a very reliable one, given the ease of creating sockpuppets). However, if an editor is being subjected to genuine malice/creepiness/criminality (someone posting your home phone number or address of your kids' school), oversighters should lend a hand.

   d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?

   If the editor's alleged identity is relevant to problematic edits (say, promoting a lame book you wrote or maligning a real-life enemy's bio), these real-life links should not be suppressed (particularly if the evidence is strong). If you're speculating onwiki about someone's identity merely to aggravate, titillate or create lulz, go have a ball on Encyclopedia Dramatica instead.

   e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)

   I'm pathologically attached to the name The Fat Man Who Never Came Back and would prefer not to give it up. However, I'm not particularly secretive about my boring real-life identity and would happily set up a user subpage revealing my first and last name and other essentials, if elected.

   f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?

   That pseudonymity is not "a guarantee" need not be explained or disclaimed. Every action we take online or off- has an associated risk. WMF should encourage but not require editors to verify their identities in an effort to bolster the credibility of our encyclopedia. ArbCom should support this view. See my answer to part b).

   g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)

   See my answer to part d). People who wish to frighten or disturb productive, responsible editors for their amusement should be swiftly expelled. However, legitimate efforts to expose conflicts of interest and editorial abuse should not be thrust under the rug.

6. Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.

   a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?

   Lawrence, are you dim? Explaining the dangers lurking on the Internets is Mommy and Daddy's job, not Michael and Sue's.

   b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.

   WMF should cooperate with law enforcement officials but lack the resources and expertise to be anyone's personal bodyguard.

   c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?

   If one of your wikifriends is being bothered in real life by some nut, feel free to independently contact your friend offline, offer support, call the cops, make sure they're okay. As to the Wikimedia Foundation's obligations, see my answer to part b)

   d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.

   Oversight and ban the miscreant, cooperate with law enforcement officials as needed.

   e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?

   Threatening or following someone in real life is stalking/harassment. Asking questions on talk pages or monitoring someone's contributions is either being vigilant, or being a cyber-pain-in-the-ass, depending the circumstance. Stalkers and harassers are reported to the authorities; vigilance is welcomed; cyber-pains-in-the-ass are invited to take up a new hobby.

7. A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?

   The edits of a known serial vandal, hoax artist, or self promoter could probably be safely reverted without too much thought. Reverting uncontroversial improvements to articles (even if such edits emanated from a boring, diabolical wiki-"experiment") in order to "send a message" is a waste of time. I'm more interested in the reasons behind someone's banning.

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

   a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?

   I realize this question is purely rhetorical, so I'll refrain from composing an incredulous, snarky, condescending or otherwise insulting reply.

   b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?

   No. Blogs are lame, and all bloggers should be boiled in their Christmas pudding.

   c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?

   A greater Wikipedian than myself said it best: "if anybody admits to involvement with the troll site, treat him like the piece of shit that he is. No excuses."[2] The Wikipedia Review does have its share of lunatics, bullies, outright bores and insufferable blowhards, but the preponderance of such characters is noticeably lower there than elsewhere on the Internet, Wikipedia included. I hear it's a mostly civilized and occasionally scintillating place to hang. I don't know what "Wikback" is and can't really be bothered to look into it.

   d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?

   A greater Wikipedian than myself said... wait, I already used that line. The fact is they're already over there. I don't think Newyorkbrad or Alison and the many other prominent Wikipedians with WR accounts are doing anything particularly naughty.

   e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )

   I wouldn't be caught dead on one of those sites, but I have a somewhat vapid young friend who posts on the Wikipedia Review under the handle "Obesity" and tells me most of what's going over there. A lot if it isn't very interesting. I have no problem with Arbitrators (pseudonymously or otherwise) participating in the message board of their choice and, even if I did, I'm not sure how I'd go about enforcing such a prohibition. I am not aware of any accusations of Arbitrators disclosing confidential information on such venues. We should, of course, continue to treat such participants like the pieces of shit that they are.

9. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with meatball:VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?

   I'm not altogether impressed by that essay, but I do support the right of newbies not to be bitten and have always recoiled from clubby administrator cabals who "watch [one another's backs]" in content disputes, scheme on IRC channels and remain entrenched in positions of influence. I have, however, stated that truly skilled writers and expert content editors are our greatest asset and should be afford higher regard than AN/I busybodies and portly talk page socialites. I worry that we drive too many of them off by subjecting them to aggressive, finger-wagging pedantry (alphabet souping, template slapping, overciting, etc.).

10. What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)

    Puce, mauve and fuchsia compete for my affection.

Individual questions

Question from Jehochman

Will you do anything about the quality of fare at the Wikipedia cafeteria? Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For The Fat Man not to forgive your glib jocularity would constitute gross hypocrisy[3]; therefore, I will grant you another chance to ask me a serious question; do not abuse this rare opportunity with common foolishness.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I admire your sense of humor and think it could be an asset to the Committee. Do you agree or disagree, and why? Jehochman ^Talk 13:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Al tally

1. Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly, without any issues. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.
2. See this oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds just like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' [Arbitrators] 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' [Motions, voting to reject, accept etc. Basically, a community version of ArbCom]. Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator. Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone without going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).
3. Former Arbitrators - should they lose CU/OS privs, and access to the Mailing list? After all, they resigned, so aren't interested in doing the work. Therefore, they have no need for such rights. If you resigned, would you surrender such privs?
4. Recall - if the community have an issue with your use of CU/OS, or actions as an Arbitrator, what effective way can they address this? (Taking it to ArbCom is the wrong answer, by the way).

Good luck with the election! Al Tally ^talk 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Stifle

All current and previous arbitrators have been administrators. Please explain how you will manage the duties of arbitration without admin rights. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I keep encountering the flawed conclusion that ArbCom candidates who have not "achieved" sysop status are somehow automatically unsuitable for the position; this assumption doesn't seem to allow for the possibility that I am widely considered to be qualified to be an administrator, that I am often mistaken for an administrator, that I have politely rebuffed many invitations to seek adminship, that many of our finest editors have no interest in becoming administrators, and that I could easily pass an RfA if elected to the Committee. This conscious choice not to seek tools I do not need should not be viewed as a deficiency.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Rspeer

In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is the scientific consensus (if it exists) a point of view, or is science a way of finding the neutral point of view? Does it differ based on the topic of the article? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Lar

In your intro you say "Thoughtful, compelling and personalized questions will be given higher priority." While my general questions may not be personal, I'd like to think they are thoughtful and compelling, in fact they have sparked some excellent discussion on and off wiki, as you well know. Do you think that requiring questions be personalised is a good restriction? (Or, if you like, when do you plan to answer my general questions?... I have downgraded the support I'm willing to give for those folk who have not yet answered them) ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting to your questions, Mr. Pushybeans!! And yes; as an inveterate narcissist and attention whore, I believe that a significant portion of the questions--and, indeed, the bulk of onwiki discussion, and even articles--should be about me rather than about boring shit like Shakespeare plays, BLP issues and flagged revisions.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Ling.Nut

• I'm asking this of everyone; it didn't occur to me to ask 'til after the "general questions" were closed. This also isn't a vanity question intended to pump my essay. I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
• Would you please read the (very, very, very short) essay at User:Ling.Nut/3IAR and indicate how much you agree or disagree with its points? If it helps at all, the essay was originally written as a response to an admin who insisted that I was not permitted to make my talk page a redirect to my user page. He did so even though there is (or was at that time?) no rule or guideline to this effect, and far more importantly, even though my actions were harming neither the encyclopedia nor any of its editors.
• Thank you for your time. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from FT2

1) Your statement says that "the committee needs an injection of independence, clear communication and common sense". Each year hundreds of users vote for (presumably) users who have exactly that. In fact the majority of new arbitrators elected each year are "independent", in the sense they have no "ties", unless one counts matters that their own peers have seen fit to trust them on. They also tend to have a clear track record of common sense, and usually are good communicators. Can you carefully explain what you will bring that's an improvement on this?

2) Your statement says that you would like "a more welcoming environment for expert content contributors and strong writers". In fact arbitrators are fairly representative and include prolific content contributors as well, so it's likely that most Arbitrators are keenly aware of the needs of the content writing environment.

a) Given Arbcom already includes the presence of very experienced content writers, what exactly will you add here?

b) Given that Arbcom's remit is deciding in cases where the community is divided on a conduct related dispute..... I'm at a bit of a loss to understand what this "more welcoming environment" you want to add to Arbcom, would involve. To take one example, content writers would be greatly helped if the admin community was more direct at rejecting editor disruption and substandard user interactions that damage the communal fabric -- whomever by. So.... would you advocate differing standards of acceptable interaction depending on how a user chose to contribute? Would you expect and enforce high standards of all users? If not, can you clarify what is the point here?

c) Enabling disruption may cause a conflict if a user has too great a sense of loyalty to any one "type" of user. Will you be able to tell content writers and long standing experienced users, when appropriate, that regardless of their positive contributions, their negative activities must end? If they don't, would you be willing to propose and enforce sanctions to prevent disruption? How do you think you will handle any backlash for such decisions?

3) What experience do you have at Wikipedia dispute resolution, and in estimating how users may react to a given response? (This is a fairly essential skill in deciding whether to play hard or soft, give another chance, discuss further, draw a line, or "try something new" in a case.)

Thoughts appreciated.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Sarcasticidealist

You are active on Wikipedia Review, where you've made a lot of posts that appear critical of Wikipedia. In this, your behaviour is consistent with many admins (me included), several of your opponents, and at least one current arb. In contrast with these people, however, you don't have an especially strong record of on-wiki contribution. All told, your record is consistent both with an anti-Wikipedia troll whose presence here is for, as I believe you once put it, "lulz" and with a Mencken-style iconoclast interested in critique of Wikipedia for its own benefit.

My questions:

1. Is there any part of my pre-amble that you consider inaccurate?

   Where did you hear I was active on the Wikipedia Review? You are sadly mistaken. See my answer to Lar's question 8d. Admittedly, "Obesity" and I converse regularly and share a number of harsh views: chiefly, that, at its worst, the ruling class of this fair website appears overrun by mean-spirited, short-sighted, incestuous, humorless, sluggishly thinking, vindictive philistines. You will also notice Obesity embraces and defends the Gianos, the Ceoils, the Bishonens, the SandyGeorgias—those writers and editors who make a tiny but growing fraction of our encyclopedia somewhat resemble an encyclopedia. And there are quieter but equally diligent characters you've never heard of who write with uncommon facility and passion. Those are my people; I want to retain them, make them smile and defend them against lesser minds so that one day strangers I meet will pronounce "Wikipedia" and snicker a little less.

   "You don't have an especially strong record of on-wiki contribution production." What, you didn't like my images, amusing captions and sound clips in the Todd Trainer article, or my footnotes to Utah Jazz player bios? My contribution deficiencies, at least as compared to those of my supporters, stem from my stark limitations as a writer, especially of facts--or perhaps from my getting drunk and passing out every time I think of a great content idea. The Fat Man is more of the hedonistic connoisseur and discerning patron and less of the artist. Somehow, though, people see me as a champion of wiki-integrity, transparency, and of the writer over the blockhead admin.

   Addressing my history of "trolling": I go through phases of discouragement, where I can scarcely muster more than a mocking or incendiary rant. As Arbitrator, I will not be magically relieved of these rhetorical excesses, but will use them as sparingly and effectively as I am able, to speak out against those who represent Wikipedia's insularity and thinly disguised ambition and cronyism, and perhaps I will elicit a chuckle or two in the process.

2. Would you describe yourself—in sentiment, not in action—as a supporter of Wikipedia?

   Yes. I enjoy my time here, Mr. Sarcasticidealist, and in some respect cherish every one the strange, beautiful and sometimes frightening people I meet, and I want them to thrive unimpeded by bureaucracies and boring grudges.

3. What is your motivation in being on Wikipedia?

   Knowledge. Friends. Lulz—in that order.

4. What's changed?

   Business is bad. In this depressed economic environment, The Fat Man is not as busy as he hoped to be IRL and has ample time for as many ArbCom cases as you might care to throw his way. Do I think there are better candidates than I? Surely, but very few of them are running, and I felt it my moral imperative to step forward in an attempt to save the community from ushering forth a new generation of feeble and mush-mouthed torchbearers of the status quo. Read my candidate statement: 7 open seats. Maybe you don't think I'm for real, but this is the best chance we'll ever have to shake things up.

Questions from Gastrin Bombesin

Please consider this question (which Whiteknight posed previously to the candidates for WMF Trustees)...

Question on Due Process

Hidden in Wikipedia's Administrator's Noticeboard, there is a quote from Lar:

The thing is, the project doesn't DO due process. There is no reason to expect it. This is not a governance experiment, a society, or even fair.

The question, in response to quotes like this, is: Should Wikipedia reform its regulatory structure to better respect modern society's concept of Civil Rights and Due Process? —Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 13:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In particular, should Wikipedia evolve its governance structure to at least catch up to where Thomas Jefferson and the Founders took us some 235 years ago, when they wrote into the US Constitution a prohibition against Writ of Attainder (the legal term corresponding to the Jimbonic practice of banning and indefinite blocking without due process).

If not, should Wikipedia evolve its governance structure to at least catch up to where Hammurabi defined the Rule of Law back in 1760 B.C. when he required that banning at least be proven at trial?

First Law of Hammurabi's Code, 1760 B.C.

1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

If not, should Wikipedia evolve to where Western Civilization has stood since the dawn of recorded history, where one could absolve themselves of the stigma of unproven charges of wrongdoing by engaging in a baptismal ablution ritual?

Second Law of Hammurabi's Code, 1760 B.C.

2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

Fourthly, should there be some (perhaps more merciful) remedy for dealing with those condemned admins who have treated editors harshly (e.g. by arbitrarily, capriciously, and summarily imposing unproven bans or indefinite blocks), in accordance with the third secular law ever carved into stone tablets?

Third Law of Hammurabi's Code, 1760 B.C.

3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.

Finally, in view of the WMF Mission to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and to disseminate that educational content to students, teachers, and scholars around the world, should Wikipedia be modeling a more up-to-date governance practice than the pre-Hammurabic tribal overlordship that has come to dominate the absurd carnival of political soap operas of the Wikisphere's legendary drama machine?

Gastrin Bombesin 10:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from Marlith

What would you want to see Wikipedia grow into in the next five years?  Marlith (Talk)  02:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from Pixelface

I am asking all candidates the following additional questions:

1. How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
2. How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
3. What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
4. Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
5. Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
6. Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Wikipedia:Arbitration policy?
7. Do you think it is a requirement that subjects must be "notable" in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about them? If so, how does one determine if a subject is "notable"?
8. Do you think the statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (which appears on the WMF's donation page) conflicts with the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Why or why not?
9. Imagine a situation where an editor consistently nominates 50 articles from the same category for deletion every day with a nearly identical reason for deletion. Other editors object to this, and several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, but no user RFC is filed. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
10. Considering the following scenario: An editor nominates all 17,000+ articles in Category:Asteroids for deletion at once and bundles them in a single AFD, with the reason for deletion "Asteroidcruft." The AFD is closed early by an admin, and the admin tells the editor not to bundle so many articles together in a single AFD. The next day, the editor nominates 200 asteroid articles for deletion using an automated tool, with the reason for deletion for each being "Asteroidcruft." A second editor, who is a member of WikiProject Astronomical objects, is checking their watchlist and sees many asteroid articles being nominated for deletion. The WikiProject member asks the first editor on the first editor's talk page to please stop nominating asteroid articles for deletion. The first editor tells the WikiProject member that he will not stop until every asteroid article is deleted from Wikipedia. The WikiProject member starts a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the situation, and later starts a thread at WT:ASTRO about the ANI thread. WikiProject members show up to the AFDs and argue to keep in all of them. At the ANI thread, several WikiProject members and several editors feel that the first editor is being disruptive. A second admin blocks the first editor for disruption, but asks for a review of the block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. At AN, several admins think the first editor is being disruptive, but several admins agree with what the first editor is doing, and several editors express their disdain for the WikiProject in general. A third admin unblocks the first editor, and the first editor continues to nominate 200 asteroid articles for deletion every day. Several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, some initiated by members of WikiProject Astronomical objects, some initiated by editors, but no user RFC is filed on the first editor. The first editor never comments at AN/I, but replies again and again on their user talk page that they feel that Wikipedia should not have any articles on individual asteroids. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
11. Wikipedia is a non-profit wiki and Wikia is a for-profit wiki and both were founded in part by Jimbo Wales. Do you think Wikipedia editors should be required to publicly disclose if they are employees/shareholders/editors of Wikia? Do you think Jimbo Wales has the power to make them do so? Do you think the arbitration committee has the power to make them do so?

Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)