Wiki143:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Avraham

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

---

Question(s) from Rama's arrow

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

Question(s) from Dasondas

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

Question(s) from Chacor

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

Question(s) from Fys

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

Question(s) from Newyorkbrad

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

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

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

Question(s) from xaosflux

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

Question(s) from User:Shreshth91

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

Question(s) from ^demon

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

Questions from Mailer Diablo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Integrity

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

  Accountability

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

  Transparency

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

5. Humour, a tradition of Wikipedian culture, has seen through several controversies in recent history. This is including but not limited to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, parody policies/essays, April Fools' Day, whole userpages, userboxes... Do you think that they are all just harmless fun, or that they are all nonsense that must go?

• Overall, I am a big proponent of humor. I think a well-placed witticism can do much more to defuse an issue than a six-page diatribe, and support, and take part in, wikihumor, outside of article space. Everything has a place and a time, and while the importance of enjoying the project is obvious, when it bleeds over into the articlespace, affecting the credibility of the project, I would draw the line. Nonsense is important in its proper place as well; everyone needs a laugh and a smile—usually the more often the better. But one can be humorous, and even silly, without losing ones head and doing something that negatively affects the project. -- Avi 00:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from 87.78.180.237

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

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

• Regarding your first point—of course. I know that many people are afraid of someone who has a track record of closely adhering to wikipedia policy and guidelines, and is not afraid to take the appropriate actions per the wikipedia community. As for my personal beliefs, I think that an impartial perusal (not overview) of my edits and messages will show that although, like every other member of the project, I have opinions, I do not "foist" them on articles, but strive to ensure that all sides are represented fairly in accordance with the strength of the sources and permeation of the point of view in light of WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV#Undure weight. Will people feel that I cannot be a good arbiter because they disagree with my opinions? Unfortunately, I am sure that is so. I am afraid people will not realize that disagreeing with someone does not mean that the person is unfair or has bad judgment. People may tend to feel that the manners, etiquette, and temperament of someone is completely secondary from the opinion--just look at any political debate today. However, just as there are people who are more interested in the message than the messenger, and cannot see that the person may be an excellent advocate for the project as a whole, even if on an issue or seven they may disagree, there are people who do see beyond that, and every once in a while, when I get a message like this one, it renews my faith in the inherent underpinnings of this project, and that the many frustrating times are in the end worth it. I hope that clarifies the issue. Thank you for participating! -- Avi 23:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Although it seems that I was the victim of trolling by a banned editor, I think that the answer I was going to give would be helpful for people to understand my position and will post it here anyway.
    • • I think that an objective appraisal of my edits to Circumcision would show that I have not let by upbringing unduly influence my edits to the article. My point-of-view is obvious and well documented, but I have strived to edit the article in accordance with all applicable wiki policies and maintain the neutrality of the article by ensuring propery cited information representative of the major points-of-view are accurately and impartially represeneted. I intend to beahve the same way on arbcom. The questions facing arbcom will be of interpreting the application of wikipedia policy to particular cases, not necessarily the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the underlying positions of the parties. A 3RR or incivility violation does not become better or worse because the argument is about actuarial science or Christian theology. So to answer your question, I believe religion, gender, occupation, sexual preference, sports team of record, shoe size, and hair color are irrelevant to the decision process for a person who strives for accurate application of wiki policy and guidelines, or at least they should be. -- Avi 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from AnonEMouse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding trolling from User:FuManChoo

You have an obvious dislike for me, as can be seen from your edits under both your former and current ID's. Your original accusations were factually inaccurate (I did not remove the quote in its entirety, nor the source). Further, your closing comments were indicative of a distinct lack of manners and etiquette, not to mention rather odious accusations. At this point, it is clear that you are not interested in answers, but are trying to poison the well and engage in attacks and accusations. I answered you earlier in good faith, even though I had suspicions of your being user:Deuterium, and all I got for my efforts was more inaccurate, untrue, smear tactics. Feel free to oppose (only once--no sockpuppets) when the voting occurs, but I am no longer going to feed your trolling. Good luck in the rest of your editing here; I'm sure we'll cross paths again on various articles. -- Avi 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical from John Reid

Content dispute on Article X. Editor A ignites war with rude comment on User talk:B. New editor B sees this and reacts but A sneaky reverts himself before anybody else notices the instigation. Rude comments on Talk:X. Rude comments between Editors A and B on each other's talk. Admin C blocks A and B for a day. 12 hours later, Admin D sees the sneaky revert and unblocks B and, for good measure, extends A's block to 2 days. Admin C sees the unblock, doesn't understand/agree with the block sum, reblocks B and extends his block to match A's. He comments in good faith on User talk:D.

Admin D sees the reblock and reads the comment that reveals C's ignorance, reunblocks B, and leaves message on AN, explaining the sneaky revert. C reblocks again, leaves message on User talk:D complaining of 0WW violation. D replies on User talk:C, explains the sneaky revert, and unblocks both parties. Admin E (up to now uninvolved, stay with me here) comes to User talk:B to follow up on unrelated Article Y discussion; sees B complaining mightily but incoherently about being blocked. E reads through talk on X, A, and B and sees a lot of rudeness, blocks both editors for a day.

Editors M, N, P, and Q, friends or partisans of A and B, object loudly on talk to every turn of events; C blocks some of them, D blocks others. Meanwhile, C and D are trading insults on talk and Admin F finally steps in and blocks them for a week. Admin G unblocks everybody. Admin H discusses the situation offwiki with Admins J and K; H posts to AN with the stated intent to block all involved parties for 24 hours for violations of CIVIL and NPA. J and K endorse; H implements the blocks, which expire a day later. The case winds up at ArbCom.

I've already written my answer in detail, encrypted it, and uploaded it to a userpage. I'll give you a week to think about this case before revealing my solutions. 08:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that this is not a good question to have been asked, as were this a real case, there would be many history pages that would need to be pored over, and as such, a better picture of timeline, history, and user interaction/tension would be uncovered. As this question stands now, I do not think there can be a good answer given ab initio, and I will refrain from answering this. -- Avi 19:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?

• They actually address different points. The neutral point of view, one of the cornerstones of the project, requires that major points of view are impartially (and almost clinically) represented through the used of reliable and verifiable sources, in basic proportion to their importance/acceptance (see undue weight. The genesis of the opinion/fact is somewhat irrelevant. Whereas, the scientific point of view would either only allow, or prioritize, views that are based on philosophy of science and the scientific method, regardless of the significance of the reliable source. For example, if it were true that the majority of people in the world believed the moon was made of green cheese, and only some small wacko group had the gall to apply scientific reasoning to the moons shape, tidal bulge, orbit, rotation, and lack of mousetronauts to imply that it is scientifically impossible for a body that size to remain whole and not be ripped apart by the force of its orbit (not to mention the lack of planet-sized cows), according to NPOV, we would have to link to the cheese sites, and would be arguing over those nutty scientists, where according to SPOV, since the cheese argument lacks scientific evidence, it would be the one under discussion. Granted this is a bit of an extreme example, but I hope this sufficiently answers your question. If there is anything else, please let me know. Thanks for participating! -- Avi 00:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Giano

Members of the current Arbcom were recently openly discussing people involved in an Arbcom case on the IRC Admin's channel. What are your views on that, and on Arbcom confidentiality. Giano 17:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• It all depends on the nature of the Arbcom case and what was being discussed. Most Arbcom cases are completely open, and anyone with the time or patience can read basically everything that was said—by participant, commentor, or arbitor. Sometimes, cases involve the real identities of people or other sensitive matters. Such material needs to be protected, for both the participants' and wikipedia's sakes. On the other hand, discussing opinions about matters in the public record is not much different than discussing the results of a political election. I personally believe that it is always a good idea to concern oneself about others' feelings when posting things where a million or so people can see it, but being potentially insensitive is very different from violating the community's trust. In general, Arbcom needs to balance the need to be transparent with the need to protect any confidential information. Personal information about people in Arbcom cases needs to be safeguarded, but the genral merits, outcomes, and thought-processes about a case is pretty much public information already. Specifically to your question, I would have to know what the Arbcom case was, exactly what was being discussed, and how it would affect the people involved before I could render an opinion on that particular issue. Thank you for participating. -- Avi 00:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• As an aside, I personally have never used IRC, preferring wikipedia or e-mail to maintain a record. -- Avi 03:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Badbilltucker

Thank you for volunteering to take on this task, and for putting yourself through having to answer these questions. For what it's worth, these particular questions are going to all the candidates.

1. I've noticed that a total of thriteen people have resigned from the committee, and that there is currently one vacancy open in one of the tranches. Having members of the committee resign sometime during their term could create problems somewhere down the road. What do you think are the odds that you yourself might consider resigning during the course of your term, and what if any circumstances can you envision that might cause you to resign? Also, do you think that possibly negative feelings from others arising as a result of a decision you made could ever be likely to be cause for your own resignation?

• I understand the position is likely to engender ill-feeling towards participants. However, I believe that if I comport myself properly, and in accordance with wiki policies and guidelines, it will not be that much different than the ill-will any sysop gets from performing his or her duties, although perhaps more intense. As for resignation, I am only human and no prophet, and cannot forse the future, but I firmly believe I would not resign as a result of a decision that was popular or unpopular. The purpose of this pre-election period is for wikipedians to get a feel for the respective candidates and their judgement/philosophy and based on the questions, answers, and wikihistory of the candidates, decie for themselves if they feel the person would be an asset as an arbitor or not. No one arbitor is going to please everybody all of the time. However, it is easier to accept/understand someone whose judgement one feels is suited to the position than someone whom one feels is ill-suited. -- Avi 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

2. There may well arise cases where a dispute based on the inclusion of information whose accuracy is currently a point of seemingly reasonable controversy, possibly even bitter controversy, in that field of study. Should you encounter a case dealing with such information, and few if any of your colleagues on the committee were knowledgeable enough in the field for them to be people whose judgement in this matter could be completely relied upon, how do you think you would handle it?

• That is actually not exactly something Arbcom is supposed to handle. Arbcom handles disputes between people; Arbcom as currently constructed and charged is not supposed to decide about the accuracy of any material. As mentioned a number of times in accptances of cases, “conduct, not content” is Arbcom's role. The editors of wikipedia (including Arbcom members not acting in an Arbcom capacity) are supposed to hash out acceptable sources, based on wiki's policies and guidelines, on the talk pages of the article. The accuracy of a statement, almost all of the time, has no bearing on whether or not 3RR was violated or incivility breached, which is Arbcom's purview. So, I do not think the situation you describe is something that would, or should, arise. If you have a specific case or issue, please feel free to clarify. Thanks for participating! -- Avi 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from User:ALM_scientist

Question: How could you be a dispute resolver when you become a part of dispute yourself. All the Muslims are begging to remove Third_holiest_site_in_Islam article, which is a creating of Muslims-Israel dispute (by a editor who say him a Jew). Note Al-Aqsa Mosque which is indeed our third holiest site is located in Israel capital. How could you remain neutral when you are unable to be play neutral in this case and become part of dispute.

Very simply, because the role of Arbcom is not to dispute content but conduct. Please see the answers to 87.78.180.237 for more detail. Thanks for participating! -- Avi 16:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: Why you think that Islamic sources become a waste and all the Muslims votes against keeping that article become useless. And that article can exist with only non-Islamic sources when it is about Islam? That means Islam sources about Islam are wrong but non-Islamic source decide holiest site?

This has nothing to do with the Arbcom elections, per se. Also, I am afraid I do not understand what you are asking. Feel free to ask on my talk page. -- Avi 16:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: About your judgement: All Shia and All Sunni had voted to delete that article and we do not consider other sites as holiest then why you think that article should be kept?

This has nothing to do with the Arbcom elections, per se. I am afraid you are bringing this up because you are unhappy with my attempting to fix the aforementioined article. Regardless, the answer is that I feel that there are plenty of reliable and verifiable sources that disagree, as I am in the process of trying to clarify. Please discuss this further on your, or the article's, talk page. Thanks. -- Avi 16:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: All the above question were related to question your neutrality here which I am no more sure about. If a person is not neutral he should not have any rule to play in any arbitration. I wish if you try to reanswer your question. I ask them again below. --- ابراهيم 17:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read above, I have answered your questions, with the exception of the second that needs clarification File:Smile.gif -- Avi 17:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • One other point. Please read the questions above, especially from the anonymous editor. Being neutral and being lobotimized are two separate things. My points of view can be seen from my edits. However, what also can be seen from my edits are a strict adherence to wikipedia policy and guidelines, over and above my own personal points of view. The election for Arbcom is not to "stack" the committee with people who will rubber stamp your opinons. Rather, it is in every wikipedians best interest to have honest, fair, and accurate arbitors who will treat everyone fairly, regardless of their agreements or disagreements about content. You have to decide if that is what you want; this venue is to help you do so. Good Luck -- Avi 17:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again questions are about your neutrality. So read them thinking that in your mind. Then you will find the relationship. A non neutral person should not have any post in wikipedia anywhere.

Question: Why you think that Islamic sources become a waste and all the Muslims votes against keeping that article become useless. You are part of Judaism WikiProject. Are not you? Do not you think that AFD become a case of Muslims Vs people-affliated-with-Israel battle ground. Do not your think that ALL Muslims voted for deleting the article and all Jews for keeping the article (I can give the references if required). You should have played a neutral role there. Do not you??? You should NOT had think about your relationships but you were fail to do that. Why? Do you think you will support in creating Second holiest site in Islam article too based on these so called reliable sources . Should we also create an fake article for First holiest site in Islam too? Why you think Quran and CNN is equal in defining ISLAM holiest sites? If CNN and fox togther say that our first holiest site is a mosque in Europe then should be accept it while neglecting Quran (like in this case)? Once again please try to answer each part of this question. I think you are failed to keep your affiliations apart while vote in AFD. Hence the question is your neutrality. I will be thankful with your reply.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ALM scientist (talk • contribs) 12:34, November 12, 2006 (UTC)

• Please calm down, no one is trying to hurt you File:Smile.gif. You have a lot of run-on sentences there, but overall, I am picking up that you seem not to be assuming good faith. I explained to you why I voted Keep above. From that, you seem to be assuming that I am a rabid Muslim hater with a hidden agenda to destroy all Islamic articles will start nominating articles for deletin pell-mell and abuse my sysop tools, etc. etc. Can you bring any proof for this other than the frenzied activity of your imagination? A pillar of wikipeia is to assume good faith. You, I am afraid, are lacking in that--ascribing evil and diabolic intentions to perfectly valid actions, and then pre-assuming future actions to make a point. It would help you, me, and everyone in wikipedia if WP:AGF were more closely followed, and people would be judged by their own actions, and not others pre-supposed opinions of them. -- Avi 17:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• As regards my neutral role, I answered the AfD to the best of my ability as it relates to wiki's policies and guidelines. I believed that there was sufficient reliable and mainstream information to support the controversy around which site is the third holiest site, and my journey through the citations is affirming that understanding. If anything, someone who wished to suppress information that is available world-wide in mainstream sources needs to thinkn long and hard about whether their actions are to HELP wikipedia or not. -- Avi 17:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• To answer your specific question about CNN and FOX, etc, I am afraid you are once again misunderstanding the concepts of neutral point of view and no original research. It does not matter what you or I think of CNN, FOX, or Rooz.com's ability to define sites. What matters is that a reliable and verifiable mainstream source supports the claim. You or I cannot allow our interpretations to color what we allow in wikipedia, that is original research. FOX and CNN have long-standing acceptance as being reliable and mainstream sources, so if they bring a claim as to a site being holy, that is acceptable in wikipedia, whether you or I disagree with it. If some tiny website or off-the-wall group makes a claim that Winnihocken, Kansas is Islam's third holiest site, I agree with you that that must be removed, but that is not the case here. Also, this is English wikipedia, and per Wikipedia:Verifiability#English-language sources would be given preference to a foreign language source. Especially one that depends on the interpretation of the wiki editor which really is original synthesis. -- Avi 17:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very calm believe me and do not think that you can even hurt me. This is your imagination . I am asking questions from you so that I could change view about you and will be thankful with your answers. You are denying answering my questions. They are about your neutrality because you are a Jew otherwise related to them. The Al-Aqsa Mosque is located in Israel and article is created by a Jew editor (support by other Jews). Hence those all are enough for my imagination when no Shia wants to keep the article and mostly Jews votes to keep. Once again if you need references I can provide. The questions are about your neutraliy and with no imagination given your link to Israel related article and most the vote to keep comes from there. Why I need imagination when a blind man can see that. Many non-Muslim voters like User:Netscott, User:Amerique think so. Netscott says: although it is generally recognized that AfDs are not about delete or keep counts please do take care to read the arguments on this page thoroughly as well do take into consideration the religious affiliations of those involved in the debate. In particular take note of the fact that the site of the Al Aqsa Mosque is disputed between Muslims and Jews. Given the fact that there is no equivalent First holiest site in Islam or Second holiest site in Islam the creation (and the content) of this article and it being a sort of directory/list of "holiest somethings" should make evident the soapbox nature of the content found therein. Thanks.

Question 1: Do you think all of us User:Netscott, User:Amerique are imagining at the same time? No one is assuming good faith? Finally, you are sure that AFD vote of keep the article had nothing to do with your relationship with Israel? Why so many Jews together were there. They are never there in such a quantity in other articles. Do you neglect that fact? I can give other examples of articles. Template:Qna Template:Qna

Question 2: Should you support creating of other such article based on travel websites and denying Muslim sources. Like Second holiest site in Islam and [based on these so called reliable sources .. You do not think that it name has any problem and why?

• In my verification, I have only found one source claiming that Medina was not the second holiest site, and no sources claiming Mecca is not the holiest site, so I agree that there is no need, nor justification, for a "holiest" or "second holiest" article. However, there are over twenty sources disputing al-Aqsa as the third holiest site--that is significant. -- Avi 18:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question 3: Why you think that Arabic/non-English sources are not related to Islamic articles and only English sources when WP:RS clearly allow to use them when relationship/relievence is more clear? Like in the case of Islam and arabic.

• I believe you misunderstood my answer. No one said they are not allowed, but they are not preferred. Secondly, your original question was that those sites are not acceptable because they are not Muslim. That is a mistake. Those sites are not only acceptable as passing WP:RS and WP:V, they are preferred as they are in English. -- Avi 18:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the attack on other people when I myself strike through my comment . Why you will ban me for  ? Stop harassing if, I already had accepted your not-to-reply reply. Thank you. --- ابراهيم 19:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I missed the strikeout tags (I was looking in the compare view). I only block people in accordance with wikipedia policy, so if you do not violate wiki guidelines, you have nothing to fear File:Smile.gif. -- Avi 19:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from User:Netscott

Avraham, from looking at your last 500 edits and specifically the edits in main space you appear to be concentrated on Jewish topics. Given this is the case it is a bit puzzling to see that you've spent a relatively inordinate amount of time editing on the Third holiest site in Islam article (going so far as to spend an hour in searching one source to support one cite to be called "the third holiest"). Given that you appear to edit very sparingly on Islam topics, what is motivating you to edit so heavily on this one topic? How strongly do you edit while keeping in mind the principle that Wikipedia is not a soapbox? Looking forward to your responses. Thanks. (→Netscott) 04:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Very simple. If you look at my last few thousand edits, and my user page, you see that one of the things I like to do best in Wikipedia is find proper sources, as I think that is the cornerstone of the encyclopædia, and fulfills both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I have spent hundreds of hours on Circumcision doing just that, but also spent hours on St. Petersburg paradox as well. In this case, I came across this article through its AfD, and in order to make my decision of Keep or Delete, I invesitgated the evidence, as opposed to blindly stating an opinion, as I try to do each time. The cyber evidence showed, at least to me, that there was plenty of support for the article, but that the article as written did not demonstrate that--what with using tourist guide sites and all. Therefore, while I voted keep, I sort-of adopted the article in order to turn it from a mess into something that is worthy of wikipedia. I am unsure what WP:SOAP has to do with the issue. As I tried to explain to ALM above, my decision was based on the notability and widespread permeation of the topic, and reliability and verifiability of the sources. Do you have a different opinion?
• Now, I have a question for you, What difference does it make what the topic is? If the editor spends a significant amount of time, not to blindly support, delete, revert, or edit war, but to investigate, research and bring impartial reliable sources to a contentious article so that the article is improved according to wikipedia guidelines, why is that worthy of a question? Would you prefer that wikipedians never attempt to edit articles that are remotely controversial? Should we forbid all Muslims from editing Christian articles? We have policies, we have guidelines, and then we have an editor base of tens of thousands who gratefully give of their time to support the project. Looking with askance on how they spend that time, for reasons unrelated to the development of the project, is part of what causes tensions here in wikipedia. If the edits are divisive, cause edit warring, blank information, are incivil, are personal attacks, I understand your concern. But intimating there is an issue for a Jewish editor to edit Islamic topics goes completely against the grain of what wikipedia is all about, in my opinion. Do you feel otherwise?
  • What I know is that the Al-Aqsa Mosque site is heavily disputed by Jewish (religion) folks and Muslims to the point that when Ariel Sharon visited the site on September 28, 2000 his visit essentially declenched the "Al-Aqsa" Intifada. Now we have the third holiest site in Islam article which was started by an editor whose user page is chock full of symbols of a Jewish nature. I realize that we as editors are to assume good faith in other editors but when an article is started by a person who displays so many symbols of Jewish faith and the "point" of the article is to try and demonstrate in a rather "undue weight" fashion that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is less than "the third holiest site in Islam" it is easy for one to question the motives of such an editor (or group of editors as the case may be). I don't think editors are expected to assume good faith to the point of stupidity particularly when the article was originally based so heavily on the word of tourism sites or sites of a less than reliable nature (this is still the case - see the AfricaGuide.com link to support the city Fez as the "third holiest" [1]). Are you aware of how this article came about? Yourself as an arbitration candidate cause me concern as you very actively participate in the editing of this article. Arbitration members are expected to be held to high standards and as much as possible be impartial (or else recuse) when arbitrating on various cases. What causes me concern is that rather than support the deletion of this remarkably evident piece of soapboxing, you're actively particpating in its development. (→Netscott) 22:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• I would request that you look at the edits I have performed on the article before making accusations. For the portions of the article I was able to get to on my day off, I substitued reliable sources for tourist nonsense, commented out entries for which I could not find support, streamlined the article by removing poor links where good ones would suffice, and edited with complete impatiality as to whether the edits make al-Aqsa more or less important (Eyup reference). I believe that the fact that there is a deep philosophical dispute as to which site comes after Medina is notable -- unless you are willing to write off most of the Shia movement. As long as wikipedia policy and guideline is followed, the article should rise above the fray. Once again, look at any and every single one of my edits to that article and its talk page, and point out where I have knowingly violated wikipedia guidelines to push a particular point of view. I ask you, is it assuming good faith to judge an editor by the religious symbols on his or her user page? Is it assuming good faith to assume that active editing is the equivalent to activist editing? Remember, wikipedia does not care what you and I think or believe, it cares how we behave! I am confident that I have approached this article as fairly as I could, are you? -- Avi 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have made three relatively minor edits in total on the article. To be honest in my view editing on the article is to in a sense support its existence. This is the main reason that I have refrained from editing more on it. The vast majority of the Muslim world (primarily consisting of Sunni Muslims) believes that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest site in Islam and while you mention Shi'as having another view, what percentage of the comparitively small Shi'a population have this other view? Given that this is the case, the more sensible action would be to just delete the article and integrate what salvageable material exists there back into the Al-Aqsa Mosque article albeit in a quantity comensurate with the the percentage of the Muslim world that doesn't hold the view that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest site. Short of that the article should be retitled to "the third holiest site in Islam" and cover moreso the usage of this expression. But as you've said before this is not the place to be discussing the article in question... I only felt it important enough to warrant a discussion of it to the extent of it being relative to your candidature. Also you should know that I share your view that it is silly to think that only certain groups of editors should be allowed to edit certain articles. If that was the case Wikipedia would go nowhere and would never gain credibility. That said, obviously I don't think that such criteria should be left out of a discussion relative to policy (and in this case in particular the "not a soapbox" policy). I invite you to respond to this last commentary I've made but if you decide not to I will understand. Thanks for addressing my questions. (→Netscott) 22:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• In a number of senses, we agree more than we disagree. I agree with you that the vast majority of the world believes it is al-Aqsa, which is why al-Aqsa is both in the lead, as well as the first entry, as it should be. However, if I recall correctly, the Shia's comprise around 15% of Muslims worldwide, somewhere between 120 and 200 million people. This is not a small, insignificant movement. Also, there are more possibilities than just the Imam Ali mosque, which is why merging this back into al-Aqsa is not prudent, as the section would be large enough that summary style would likely kick into play. I have not voiced a position on "quoting" the phrase, nor do I plan on it, as I am uninterested in the politics behind the title. Regarding WP:SOAP, of course the article is being used by some in that way. Most articles with any degree of controversy will be championed or villified by someone. I wish I could convince everyone to just stop it, but that is a pipe dream. What I can, have, and will continue to do is edit according to policy and guidelines, do my best to act in as impartial and forthright manner as possible, and try to set an example by my edits and actions. I hope our dialogue has helped you come to a better understanding of how I would act on Arbcom, and whether that is something you would prefer or not. Thank you for participating. -- Avi 00:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from User:BostonMA

In your previous comments in response to questions by User:Netscott, you state:

"you see that one of the things I like to do best in Wikipedia is find proper sources, as I think that is the cornerstone of the encyclopædia,"

I agree with the sentiments you expressed. However, we seem to disagree on what constitutes a good source for an encyclopedia. The question of whether Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is the third holiest site in Islam is certainly a contentious one, and therefore deserves high quality sources. Could you explain why you think that a web page which is apparently paraphrasing the a (presumably unpublished) study of the environmental and cultural assets of Cyprus made a professor in a school of Planning, is a proper source for establishing a claim regarding the third holiest site in Islam is regarded by Cypriots to be a location in Cyprus? Do you think that it is relevant when making such a claim to know which locations are regarded as the first two holiest sites by the same people? --BostonMA ^talk 14:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly, please remember that this is not the place to discuss anything specific about any article. This is to help you understand my judgement and help you come to a dcision about my suitability as an arbitor. I will respond here, and would be glad to further discuss the specific details about any citation in its proper place, which is the talk page of the article, to your heart's content.

Wikipedia requires the following from sources reliability and verifiability. There is a spectrum. Certain sources, such as government sources are beyond question. Others, such as gossip blogs are undoubtably improper. The question that you, I, or anyone has to ask themselves is whether or not a given citation is acceptable. I find that the best way to do this, especially if the article is contentious as you aptly state, is to imagine that the article is completely neutral. So, if I was documenting, for example, something about the application of Generalized linear models to excess product liability insurance, would I use a statement posted by a student about any professor? I don't know; likely not as it stands. But, if I spend an hour or so researching from other sites that:

1. The professor exists
2. Is a recognized scholar in his or her field
3. The professor has been shown to have spent the time and done the research on which he is being quoted.
4. The professor is a speaker at a conference where this is one of the topics
5. The professor's paper is listed by the college under faculty research by topic
6. The paper is listed elswhere under profiles of research interests
7. The paper itself is hosted on the university's server

I have much more certainty that the quote is accurate.

I believe you may have to ask yourself, are you holding this article up to an untenable, or higher-than-normal standard, and if so, why? Yes, this is contentious, but that does not mean that acceptable sources should be denied out-of-hand. If a reliable source quoting a scholar on Cyprus claims that Cypriots believe "X", that should be sufficent. Would you have this much concern if the quote was that Cypriot's believe that Al-Aqsa is the third-holiest? Or even if they belive Cyprus is an island? Strong statements need strong proofs, we all agree, but I am somewhat uncertain why you feel this particular citation is not strong enough with the evidence given.

In regards to your second question, it is interesting in that this is the second instance I have seen of the demotion of Medina, once for al-Aqsa and once for the Imam-Ali shrine. At this point I do not think that there is the same preponderance of evidence for world-wide disagreement as there is whether al-Aqsa is #3, #4, or #5, but if you find more reliably sourced and verifiable cases claiming Medina is not the second holiest place in the world according to Islam, then perhaps you should start an article. From what I have seen in my research, however, I doubt that will be the case.

As for more article-specific issues, I believe their proper place is on the article's talk page, and will gladly respond there. Thank you for your question, and for participating in the process! -- Avi 18:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And yet in your own article, you use reports that Medina is not the second holiest site, in order to support the claim that Al-Aqsa is not the third holiest. From the Third holiest site in Islam page:

According to an article in the Turkish Daily News, Turkish Muslims consider the Eyüp Mosque as the third holiest pilgrimage site in Islam after Mecca and Jerusalem.

So again, I would ask you whether it is important in an article that claims that a shrine in Cyprus is the third holiest site in Islam, what the first two sites are according to that source? --BostonMA ^talk 20:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I bring up this specific issue is that you stated in comments related to this nom that:

"you see that one of the things I like to do best in Wikipedia is find proper sources, as I think that is the cornerstone of the encyclopædia,"

and I would like to know what your understanding is. I don't think that anyone contests that the Professor exists. However, you state above:

The professor's paper is listed by the college under faculty research by topic

When I go to that page, I see a list of links one of which goes to a webpage describing Prof. Bowen's work in Cyprus.. You refer to "the professor's paper". What is the name of this paper? Was it published? If so, what is the name of the publication? What is the date of publication? Have you seen or read this paper? Please do not give a lengthy reply, please just give direct answers to the questions I ask. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Once again, I believe this should be on the article's talk page. Further, I would recommend reading my answers in their entirety before re-asking the question:

Firstly, let me remind you that you are not informing me of anything I do not know. On the contrary, it was I who provided both the citation, and the quote that you are bringing File:Smile.gif. [If you say so [2] --BostonMA ^talk 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)] Secondly, and much more unfortunately, you seem to be working under the misconception that the purpose of this article is somehow to demean the importance of al-Aqsa. Perhaps it is poor experience with other editors, perhaps it is Freudian projection, only you can answer that. To me, the purpose of the article is simply to document the apparent world-wide disagreement as to the third holiest site in Islam. If that means al-Aqsa is the second, then G-d bless; it is irrelevant to this article. I did not see the need to place it in the text, as it was clear in quote; later on someone added it to the text. Again, I am afraid that was more due to the feelings of "attacking" and "defending" various religious beliefs as opposed to enhancing the encyclopædia, but c'set la vie.

On this topic, I have unfortunately seen much editing here where wiki guidelines and policies take a back seat to various ideologies, and editing becomes a war. This is most unfortunate. While I personally have my own points-of-view which are well documented, I have always tried to ensure that the primary motivating factor is to enhance the project in accordance withits policies and guidelines. I am sure you feel the same way, but perhaps you have become sensitized to the point where you find it hard to assume good faith with editors whom you feel have a distinctly different point of view. If that is the case, I hope that you can overcome that cynicism, for your sake and the projects sake. Trust me, i know it is hard, I work on myself in that way constantly.

Now, as for your point about the paper. Once again, that does not belong here, and I have asked to discuss it in its proper place, the articles talk page. For various reasons, you continue to ask it here. Oh well. According to my discussions with the Library of Congress when I was registering a work of short fiction, something posted on the internet is considered published. Now that the legalese is out of the way, I would like to ask you, how is this any different from a news article on CNN or Al-Jazeera? You raised some valid points on the articles talk page about the attribution. Now, I think it is rather obvious that as I have provided more than one link between the name "George E. Bowen" and the paper (Only one Bowen in UofT, only Bowen Fullbright scholar in Cyprus, paper hosted on UofT server, multiple connections between Bowen and Assesing Cyprus, paper itself taks about Profesor Bowen, etc. ) that the paper can be reliably attributed to him. While we prefer topics published in peer-reviewed journals, a depiction of the analysis of a Fullbrigt scholar is eminently notable. To answer your specific questions, the name of the paper is "Assessing the Isle of Cyprus", it is paraphrased on the servers of the University of Tennessee for all to see (pure poetry, without a fee ;), the parahrase was published on April 3, 2001.

More importantly, I am beginning to feel that your problem with this paper is neither the paper nor its source, but the thesis it portrays. You seem to have personalized this article, and feel that it is an attack on you and what you believe. I feel badly that you have become so defensive, and I understand how that can happen. But the nly way this project will succeed is if we are able to all understand that the application of the policies and guidelines trancend each and every one of our personal beliefs, mine, yours, Jimbo's, and how if we were all to abide by them, it would actually serve to remove the negative spin that we each psychologically fear. -- Avi 21:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK, you claim that this web page is a paraphrase of a paper named "Assessing the Isle of Cyprus", correct?
• Have you seen or read the actual paper for which the above link you say is a paraphrase?
• Was the actual paper published?
• If so, when?
• If so, what was the name of the publication if there was one?

Please avoid long winded answers, and please avoid discussing your opinions of me, of my motivations, or of the Library of Congress. Please just give direct answers to the above questions, preferably single word answers. --BostonMA ^talk 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the relevance of this to the Arbitration elections. Thanks. -- Avi 21:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom members are expected to a) understand wikipedia policies, such as WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. They are also expected to b) examine evidence presented to them and to follow closely argued disputes. I am attempting to determine if you understand what a good source is for an encyclopedic article on a contentious subject. I am also attempting observe how you evaluate evidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 21:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from Dakota

If elected to the Arbitration Committee will you continue active editing? Will you not lose interest in contributing to articles. Will you be available to any users who seek your help or advice.

--Dakota 06:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• In order of your questions:
  1. I sure hope to.
  2. I haven't yet. After becoming a sysop, I found that my article edit frequency did drop, but not as precipitously as I had feared.
  3. I'm available now File:Smile.gif. I have no intetion of that changing if I am elected to Arbcom.
• Thanks for asking and participating! -- Avi 06:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from JzG

Open-mindedness and the ability to revise one's own position in response to new evidence seems to me to be an important factor in considering ArbCom cases. Can you please provide an example of a situation where your initial judgement of a situation turned out to be wrong, and show how you dealt with it? Guy (Help!) 14:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sure. One example that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society. Originally I voted for delete, and the article was deleted. However, during the process, I had a number of discussions with the main editor, user:MichaelCPrice, and based on new evidence and research, agreed that the society was notable, so I worked with him to develop a better article in his user space, that is now back in wikipedia as Mega Society. Thanks for participating! -- Avi 06:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from maclean

Do you have dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you seek a position with the Mediation Committee?

• I have no formal experience as a mediator in those particular venues, although I have commented in some, and was a party to at least one mediation by the cabal. I attempt informal mediation directly on talk pages (for example Talk:Naeim Giladi, the archives of talk:Barbara Bauer and my and other user talk pages. Regarding joining a committe if unsuccessful in this Arbcom election, I would make the decision at that point. I also have experience in marriage and youth counseling outside of wikipedia. Thanks for participating! -- Avi 06:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Torinir

I'm asking these questions all applicants:

1) How would you handle a situation where an error of judgment has occured, especially if evidence is provided to confirm that the position is incorrect?

2) If a decision of yours, while technically a correct one, would knowingly be unpopular en masse, how would you present your decision?

3) Place each of these policies/guidelines listed in order of precedence (to you) starting with highest priority. There is really no right or wrong answer. I'm interested in seeing what you would normally look at first when assessing an article.

• 1. If I am wrong on facts, then I am wrong on facts, and would have to change it. Similar to the question by JzG, if evidence is brought showing that I was mistaken, I will admit I was wrong and work to make things better. The important point is not ego, but making the project a better place. No one is correct all of the time. -- Avi 07:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. In general, decisions should always be worded with civility and politeness in mind. I believe that there is merit to couching an opinion in terms that are intended to mollify. My responsibility as a member of the wiki project, (not just as a member of Arbcom) is to make the best decisions and judgement that I can to help the project. It does not require "putting someones eyes out" with a finely crafted piece of writing, dripping with satire and barbed humor, that is intended to skewer all those who disagree--even if they are wrong. We are engaged in trying to collaborate, not engage in verbal confrontation, and if a decision would likely be unpopular, explaining it in detail in a non-confrontational manner would serve well in defusing potential backlash. I feel this would be most often true in cases where the dispute is between to parties and does not have more "wiki-wide" overtones. Sometimes, however, a firm line does need to be taken. For example, if engaging in mature and intellectual dialogue with an editor who is breaking policies and guidelines does not serve to help the editor understand how to better contribute, and the policies and guidelines are being broken, a stern message would be called for. Similarly in the case of your question. Where the Arbcom decision would have a more wiki-wide effect, firmer (although polite) language may need to be used to emphasize the importance of adherence. Rudeness should always be avoided, but more firmness may be called for under different circumstances. -- Avi 07:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. I actually believe the question is impossible to answer as asked, because the application of these rules are neither serial, contradictory, or even always concurrent. For example, WP:V requires WP:RS. WP:BLP is really just an "intensifier" to WP:V/WP:RS. WP:C is a "filter" on WP:RS preventing use in certain circumstances. All of these are policies on actual writing style and prose selection of the article. WP:N applies to the article's subject, not the articles's content. WP:NOT applies to editor conduct So being asked placing them in an order is like being asked which of these is most important: Chocolate Ice Cream, Rainy days, Tuesday, the space shuttle's life support system, your personal best time in the 400m dash, and your mother's nickname for you. Not only are they incomparable, they are also not disjoint. WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR need to be implemented simultaneously. WP:RS is the method of ensuring WP:V. WP:BLP is really just saying we have almost NO leeway for the above three in the case of living people. WP:C is a filter on WP:RS in that you have to ensure you are not violating the copyright by using proper attribution of paraphrased texts and only fair use images. WP:N is a decision algorithm for creating the article in the first place (or deleting it) regardless of the nature of the sources and the style of the prose. WP:NOT also applies regardless of neutrality of text and acceptability of citations, although I often see violations of WP:NOT related to violations of WP:NPOV. So in a nutshell, I respectfully submit that the question is inherently flawed, and that any ordering of these policies provides the inaccurate impression that sometimes one must be selected over the other. Thanks for participating! -- Avi 07:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Sugaar

How would you deal with abuse of authority by administrators, meaning by this application of blocks as punitive measures and use of blocks in unclear PA cases, as per WP:BLOCK. Would you protect the sysop no matter what or would you defend policy above all? In other words, what do you consider more important: strict discipline or strict application policy? Thanks.

• There is no pat answer to this question; each case has to be evaluated on its merits, and choosing "strict" discpline or "strict" application is a misnomer, in my opinion. There are too many variables. Is this the sysop's first infraction? is this the vandal's first infraction? Is this a hot-topic article? Was it personal information? Was it a threats? Do the sysop and the individual have a backhistory? For example, for someone with a long history of vandalism, quick blocks are by nature preventative. For an admin with a tendency to shoot first, ask questions later, it may be more likely an improper block. Each case needs to be judged in its merits, and the only "blanket" policy should be a measured and proper application of wiki policies and guidelines. -- Avi 19:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Sarastro777

1) When recently challenged under the guidelines of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to justify your persistent efforts to label the President of Iran as an Anti-Semite in his biography, you responded with [[3]]. In light of that guideline, do you think citing the potentially biased opinion of the Prime Minister of Israel (Ehud Olmert), a Los Angeles Attorney (Alan Dershowitz), and various Israeli officials, and Jewish figures (Eric Yoffie), was reasonable justification for the inclusion of material that might be construed as libelous and slander in the biography of a living foreign head of state? Sarastro777 20:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

2) Could you share your understanding of the difference between using a newspaper as source for events/facts and using a newspaper as a source to use the opinion-labels of authors from op/ed pieces? Reference: [[4]] Sarastro777 20:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

3) When confronted with a well-known logic error "Two wrongs make a right," you responded "I have asked for civil discourse... not to bandy about emotional catchphrases and personal attacks." [[5]] Is this a reasonable avenue of interaction/response with other editors regarding a potential logical fallacy you may have made? Sarastro777 20:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

4) You are known to frequently bring up your personal religious beliefs when dealing with unrelated content; e.g. "If by tradition we are going from when G-d Promised Abraham that the land of Israel will be his, that's around 3800–4000 years ago 8-)" [[6]] in regard to an edit dealing with the dating of an archaeological artifact. In the future, what steps will you take to insure this personal bias does not influence any decisions you would make? Sarastro777 21:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

5) On November 17th, you reverted another editor's edit with the comment "no need to smear the guy in the first paragraph." [[7]] Did you revert the edit because of a factual/verifiability problem according to policy or because in your opinion you thought someone was being "smeared" or "should not be smeared"? If it was a stylistic objection, then did you use revert appropriately? Sarastro777 21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Welcome back. Before I answer, I should point out that you have a history of distinct personal dislike for me. As such, I am of the belief that you are less interested in my answers, than you are at finding another venue to engage in venting your displeasure against those who 1) disagree with you 2) follow wikipedia policy when disagreeing with you 3) do not capitulate to improper imprecations. Be that as it may, I will try and answer your issues politely, where called for.
  1. There is no libel or slander when the material published has been verified and accepted as accurate by such media outlets as the New York Times.
  2. Being that both cases referenced in the diff are about labels, whether they be of the actions of a government or individual, there is no issue.
  3. You would have a point, other than the fact that there was no "two" wrongs, and I was solely being attacked instead of my points being answered. Secondly, read the two edits before that, perhaps, and you may begin to understand the response.
  4. You may wish to 1) develop a sense of humor and 2) read up on the traditional use of emoticons to substitute for body language and visual cues in an electronic medium.
  5. The accusation of homosexuality was going to be brought with proper citations and in a more encyclopædic manner in the next paragraph. This is wikipedia, not the gossip section of the New York Post. Further, it was not an administrative "revert" but an edit. -- Avi 02:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Anomo

1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 11:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Not explicitly. I believe there should be a maturity level for ArbCom, which should become evident from users' histories. However, for legal reasons, I can understand if a floor of 18 is implemented. -- Avi 17:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2. I have read on several websites (they even gave links to block logs) of Wikipedia admins who do things like indefinitely blocking accounts who have not edited for months, there was no CheckUser anything, no reports, and the admin didn't give any reason, just put personal attacks as the block reason (e.g. saying "troll"). Basically such cases seem done beyond punative, but just out of bullying. I saw at least ten of these, but so far I can only find one here [8]. I don't feel like digging for hours, as I just want to ask your opinion of whether you support or oppose such admin activity because it's clear most support it. Anomo 11:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Care to share which websites? There are websites whose sole focus is to attack wikipedia, and whose primary members are banned trolls, so I would take what I find with a few metric tonnes of salt. More importantly, your classifying this as "bullying" as opposed to a more neutral term, implies to me that you may have a vested interest in this, and similar, cases. In general, admins are heald to very high standards, and may not abuse their privileges. Looking more closely at the edits of this banned user, it is apparent that he had a habit of revising other peoples warnings/posts to make them look bad; one of the most egregious violations of wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThodin&diff=18800279&oldid=18793065). Why there was a delay in the final perma ban is something to take up with the blocking admin, but this user is a recidivist and the blocking seems justified as protective of wikipedia. So once again, I am forced to ponder the provenance of your question, and what particlar issue you may be facing. -- Avi 17:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

3. What is your view on the current policy often called "kicking them while they're down" of deleting the user and talk pages of people who are blocked? Anomo 11:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked or banned? Blocked users should not have their talk and user pages deleted, as they will return, unless the block is an indef block, in which case it should be removed, as it only serves to clog up the server. However, if the block was as a result of improper use of the user/user talk page, than the offending material should be removed. Banned users have lost editing privileges on wikipedia, and perma-banned users are functionally the same as perma-blocked users (perhaps therein lies the root of the confusion) and as such, wikipedia should not be a memorial to people so disruptive that their ability to remain in the community and project was revoked. -- Avi 17:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is your view on the practice on Wikipedia where a person blanks out text on talk pages because the text mentioned something wrong the person did or defeated them in an argument? The text blanked usually has no reason given. When there is a reason given, it's only a fake reason. In rare cases, the text is not blanked, but the entire talk page is archived including discussions hours old, blanking it out. Anomo 11:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• User pages have somewhat more leeway than article pages. I am of the belief that properly applied block warnings/edit warnings should remain, so that admins can block recidivist users. Also, I am of the opinion that talk pages should be archived, not cleared. Even though there always is the history, I think it is a matter of good faith to not remove valid edits to ones talk page. Trolling and vandalism is another story, of course. However, it currently is not a violation to do so, with the possible exception of removing vandal warning tags. -- Avi 17:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

5. What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them? Anomo 11:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked or banned? People who are blocked, in general, should have their user pages open, unless they use those pages to further vandalize, such as 1) removing block warnings/notices, continue to provoke by posting personal attacks against other users, creating attack pages and subages, and the other policies and guidelines that relate to user pages. In those situations, protection of user pages are called for to protect the project. There are good reasons for it when used properly. Banned users (other than those banned from particular articles) have lost editing rights on wikipedia, which includes user and user talk pages. Please see Wikipedia:Banning policy. -- Avi 17:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Why do you feel in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has always sided with the admins? Anomo 11:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Who says I feel this way? Who says Arbcom acted this way? Assumption of fact doth not fact create. Please bring examples of what you are trying to ask. Thank you. -- Avi 17:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.