My real name is Joe Sperrazza. I have been editing since April of 2007, having initially edited under the username 4wajzkd02 (but no others). I meet the eligibility criteria to stand as a candidate, and confirm that I will fully comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data.
In addition to my enthusiasm for Wikipedia, I would bring to the Arbitration Committee over 30 years of Professional Experience in Information Technology and an extensive background in management. I believe that Arbcom needs to strike a balance between the many policies and guidelines in place and the practical matter that we all are volunteers.
I welcome questions, and thank everyone for considering me.
Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
Do minor sanctions such as limited topic bans require specific findings that each editor named has violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines in that topic area? If an immediately prior WP:AN/I discussion did not show any support for a topic ban, should ArbCom impose one without specific findings of any violation of a policy or guideline?
Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?
"Stare decisis" has not been the rule for ArbCom decisions. For general rulings and findings, is this position still valid, or ought people be able to rely on a consistent view of policies and guidelines from case to case?
Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?
Many cases directly or indirectly involve biographies. How much weight should the committee give to WP:BLP and related policies in weighing principles, findings and decisions?
How would you personally define a "faction" in terms of Wikipedia editors? Is the behaviour of "factions" intrinsically a problem, or are the current policies sufficient to prevent any faction from improperly controlling the tenor of a Wikipedia article? If the committee determines that a "faction" rather than an individual editor is at fault in a behaviour issue, how would you suggest handling such a finding?
Arbitrators do not make policy. How would you handle sweeping remedies which amount to policy change, for example the one that puts all BLP pages and LP mentions under discretionary sanctions?
Arbitrators need a lot of time to do justice to a complex case, with request, evidence, workshop, talk pages, propose decisions, and talk pages all comprising maybe hundreds or thousands of diffs, and up to the equivalent of a short novel of text, not to mention email evidence and discussion, "the other Wiki" and background research. Do you have the time to conscientiously work on these sorts of case?
Because of the workload of Arbitration cases, it has been suggested that they should, in general, be heard by 5 or 7 of the active arbitrators, possibly with one "spare". Would you support a solution like this?
Arbitrators need a lot of patience. I was very worried when one Arbitrator said on-wiki he had difficulty keeping his temper. Do you think you have the patience this role requires?
Arbitrators need to be impartial and be seen to be impartial. If you became an arbitrator would you announce your opinion of the outcome of a case, or of an involved party at the request stage? Do you think Arbitrators should have the power to add any party they like to a case?
The Committee must also be seen to be impartial as a whole. If you were elected would you be willing to waive your right to bring cases for the duration of your office? If not why not?
As an Arbitrator you would have access to the Checkuser right. As well as the obvious responsibility of access to private information, the right brings the power (if you have the block bit) to make effectively non-overturnable blocks, by simply labelling them as "checkuser blocks". This is because a block can be based on private information not available to mere administrators. A significant number of checkusers have used this privilege without any private information being relevant. Do you consider this something that you would do or condone, and why?
The purpose of the Committee is to resolve disruptive disputes which the community cannot. One ex-Arbitrator commented that "it is not about justice and fairness". Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment, to what extent and why?
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC).
My real name is Joe Sperrazza. I have been editing since April of 2007, having initially edited under the username 4wajzkd02 (but no others). I meet the eligibility criteria to stand as a candidate, and confirm that I will fully comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data.
In addition to my enthusiasm for Wikipedia, I would bring to the Arbitration Committee over 30 years of Professional Experience in Information Technology and an extensive background in management. I believe that Arbcom needs to strike a balance between the many policies and guidelines in place and the practical matter that we all are volunteers.
I welcome questions, and thank everyone for considering me.
