This utility is for asking a question of a candidate. Editors who are eligible to vote may also ask a question, via one of the following methods:

  1. Ask a general question: post a question on that link. All candidates will then be able to copy the question over to their Question page and will respond as they see fit.
  2. Ask an individual question: pick the statement of the candidate you wish to pose the question to from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements, click the "Questions for the candidate" link, go to #Individual questions, and post the question there. Only this candidate will respond to that question.

Please keep questions succinct and relevant, and do make an effort to ensure you aren't overlapping a general question that has already been asked (even if the candidate hasn't yet copied it over to his or her individual question page), or indeed an individual question that has already been asked of this candidate.

Guidance for candidates:
Candidates are requested to answer all questions that are put to them, including all general questions, to ensure the Community is as fully informed as it wishes to be before voting commences. You are, of course, welcome to refuse to answer a question if you feel uncomfortable doing so, but do remember that that may well result in a voter choosing to oppose you. If a question is a near-duplication of another, you are—of course—welcome to as an answer to that question simply refer the editor to your response to the similar question.

General questions

Questions that an editor would like a majority of the—or all—candidates to answer should be asked as general questions. General questions are asked here, and copied over and answered by the candidate as s/he sees fit. Editors should ask general questions at that link, and not here; only the candidate should place questions here. (See top of page for guidance.)

Answered[edit]

Questions from FT2

These are some questions about WP:CLUE and insight, focussing on a role as a member of Arbcom. Research is allowed and encouraged.

  1. There is clear agreement that all is not well, in all ways, at Arbcom. Many users standing will be hoping to change that, as many did last year. What aspects work well, and what are the core changes you feel would help change the ones that don't?
    • No single arbitrator alone is going to be able to "reform" the entire body, especially as a freshman member of that body. Neither I, nor any other candidate, can force other abitrators to change their style or their methods of handling cases. The best that can be expected from any individual arbitrator is for them to lead by example. One arbitrator can take the lead in pushing discussion on the list to reach an agreement about what should be stated about evidence while being cautious about privacy concerns. One arbitrator can take the lead to comment on a RfAR talk page that discussion is ongoing between arbitrators on the mailing list. One arbitrator can take the lead to use the workshop pages extensively during the decision making process and/or to provide brief explanations of their votes. There are plenty of such examples and some current arbitrators are already undertaking such actions. When enough arbs start participating in these ways, the culture of the body will shift towards such practices. My main candidate statement and answers to other questions clearly indicate what direction I would choose. If anyone has any additional questions about my intentions or approach, I welcome the queries.
  2. Ex-arbitrators and Jimbo are privy to various Arbcom dialogs. What impressions do you have regarding the nature and extent of their involvement in the sitting arbitrators' discussions? How do you imagine their activity looks, on the Committee's mailing list/s, and in particular when the topic is a controversial matter, one that ex-arbitrators may have views on, or some other significant matter?
    • It is exceedingly difficult to assess this participation as an outside observer. I have mostly hearsay and speculation on which to base such an assessment. It is my impression that Jimbo is far too busy to involve himself regularly in ArbCom business and that he does so exceptionally rarely. The impression I receive about ex-members of ArbCom is that in at least some instances that former arbs act and provide feedback as though they were active members of the Committee, even in rare occasion going so far as to act "on behalf of the Committee". (I'm not interested in stirring up drama by pointing to particular cases, but I will provide some examples if you feel it necessary to demonstrate my awareness of the situation.) I am not privy to the ins and outs of the situation, but I've seen more than enough "in the open" to be deeply concerned about the level of influence/interference taking place "behind the scenes". See #29 under Questions from MBisanz for more information about my general view of the situation.

  3. Two questions, or two sides of the same question. Your choice.

    a) Arbcom involves matters that Arbitrators may decide need to be kept out of the public domain, for various reasons that vary between privacy breach and avoidance of harm, to reducing disruption. You-personally-may come under suspicion from some users regarding such matters if you do so. It is unlikely that you will be able to do the job properly without offending a range of users, and unlikely you will be able to always explain your actions as an admin might in a range of circumstances. Thoughts?

    b) As the community has become more versatile in handling everyday forms of disruptive conduct, Arbcom cases have tended to cover a higher proportion of cases where privacy is a significant issue, and cases where there are factors involved that some will argue cannot be fully disclosed due to privacy, WP:BEANS or other effects that would be harmful to the project. At the same time the community wishes greater levels of disclosure, and some will demand it, often without regard to harm (which they may not be aware is a possibility if their requests are met). Communal benefit, or user safety, may be at risk in some of these. And yet you are also there to do right by the project and community. You will be a decision-maker in the question of what to make public, and indeed, when to not even explain why something will not be made public (because of concerns over consequences or fairness). Thoughts?

    • It is a bit difficult to answer questions where the factors are largely unknown to outside viewers. I would generally trend towards some degree of openness. However, I am familiar with the community norms and expectations in relation to privacy and BEANS, and would respect that culture, including the usual practice of erring on the side of caution. There are clearly demands from the community for both greater transparency and strict respect of privacy. I would try find a balance between maximizing communication with the community and minimizing harm. I am hard pressed to imagine a case where it would be inappropriate to divulge at least some basic details about why some evidence is being kept private and what general indications the evidence gives. That is not to say such evidence does not exist, but rather that with my current experience I am unfamiliar with what would require such secrecy. I believe it would be appropriate, for example, to reveal that some private evidence contains personally identifying information that establishes sockpuppetry or off-wiki canvassing/edit war coordination. It would clearly inform the community of the essential substance of the evidence and the reason it cannot be shared publicly. At the same time, it would protect the private details involved. After being exposed to the internal workings and mailing list of ArbCom, I may form a more nuanced position or alter my position somewhat in order to respond to the evidence and realities before me.
  4. Seasoned and respected users appointed to Arbcom routinely believe they will not burn out. Yet, equally routinely, a proportion do (or become markedly less responsive over time, or less likely to keep pushing to reduce long standing issues). Why should users feel you stand a chance of lasting the course and remaining strongly involved in a year's time?
    • In my opinion, any reassurance someone could give in response to this question would be little more than an expanded version of the simple assurance that the candidate will not burn out. I honestly cannot assure any voters what my state of mind or life situation will be in a year. It is entirely possible, though unlikely, that circumstances will cause me to change my mind, reduce/stop my participation in Wikipedia, or otherwise impact my ability to serve on ArbCom and remain a responsive abitrator. As such, I'm not going to provide iron-clad reassurances as they would potentially be dishonest, even if unintentionally so. I can promise to do my best to remain active, open to communication, and stick to the principles I have expressed, no more or less.
  5. Many disputes stem from poor following of communal norms (including policies), or norms that are problematic, insufficient, disputed or conflicting in the face of some new kind of issue. When standards lapse, or dispute arises due to such issues, how hard should Arbcom push the community in expressing the pursuit of higher standards or better consensus as a "need" rather than a "request"?
    • This is a very difficult question. Much of the answer depends on the specific context and case being considered. In general, if there is a significant lapse in the expression of the rules or something that is commonly interpreted as conflicting statements, I would support the committee "officially" raising the issue on the appropriate policy talk page. This should be accompanied by notifications at the policy village pump and administrators' noticeboard, as well as filing a policy RfC. I would avoid pushing for any specific resolution to the issue, instead pointing out the flaw(s) as clearly as possible. ArbCom can't really force the community to change the rules and the community has reacted very poorly to actions perceived to be "legislating from the bench". However, I believe if ArbCom raised the issue neutrally and used the existing forums for such policy discussions that results would be more forthcoming than a simple statement from the Committee indicating a need to address the issue. That all said, I tend to believe there are less contradictions inherent to the rules and principles than often presented, as indicated by my candidate statement.
  6. If appointed, what would you consider your personal sense of "your mandate" to be? (This is not asking what Arbitrators should do; rather it is asking what you see as your personal special agenda, or "matters and issues to especially focus on", out of all the areas of Arbitrator work and activities, as a Committee member.)
    • My three main "campaign planks" express my "agenda" fairly well. I intend to focus very heavily on underlying principles and the most complementary readings of those principles. This goes hand-in-hand with my intent to clearly indicate to the community (and administrators) of the abilities and tools they have at their disposal to resolve disputes and problematic behavior. A focus on our foundational principles and empowerment of the community are very important to me, for both philosophical and pragmatic reasons. I believe a greater focus on fundamental principles (implicitly deprecating a focus on specific policy wording) and the community's ability to act will result in more action being taken to resolve disputes and behavioral issues before a case has a chance to reach ArbCom.
  7. How will being on Arbcom affect your actions, or choices about how to act, in other capacities - as an editor, user, admin, or the like?
    • I intend to recruit one or two MedCab volunteers to take my place as a coordinator. I intend to be cautious about any perceived conflicts that may arise due to cases in which I may have previously acted in my capacity as an administrator or a (formal or informal) mediator, recusing myself as necessary and appropriate. Otherwise, I intend to be generally mindful of my actions and statements, realizing (for better and worse) that my activities will be held to a higher standard as an abitrator and (in the eyes of some) will reflect on ArbCom as a whole.

I expect to add a couple more to these, and will be interested to see the results. They are intended to be searching. Feedback will be provided. Thank you. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If any points need clarification, or if you have any follow-up questions, please do not hesitate to respond.

Questions from MBisanz

  • A. About 3 years, when I first created this account. I largely edited as an IP until January 2007.
  • A. 10818. 23%.[1] These are almost all "by hand" edits, as I make very little use of automated and semi-automated tools.
  • A. Yes. Since 31 May, 2007.
  • A. No.
  • A. No.
  • A. No.
  • A. No.
  • A. I brought Laozi and East Asian religions up to good article status. I think more "core" topics need attention and improvement. Image:Save a Little Dram for Me.ogg is a featured sound I helped restore (and quite a fun little song). I am also very proud of my participation in mediation and third opinion requests.
  • A. No. While the tools may be useful for an arb, they are not necessary to carry out the responsibilities of a seat on ArbCom.
  • A. I have not utilized alternate accounts. I did edit as an IP somewhat regularly from October 2005 until January 2007. I have not edited under another account nor edited logged out since January 2007.
  • A. I openly make myself available to contact via email. I am a member of the MedCom mailing list. I have used IRC, but my participation there has been very limited for some months. I occasionally use Skype. IRC and Skype are largely been used for socializing, but they are also used to coordinate on projects (such as for joint-nomination featured sound candidates), privately discuss mediation efforts, discuss wikiphilosophy, and so forth.
  • A. No.
  • A. I do not believe there is a contradiction. The former states that those participating in some places may be placed under greater scrutiny, which (for better or worse) is little more than stating an observable fact. The latter (correctly) clarifies that off-wiki activities are not subject to sanctions unless there is a clear threat of disruption to the project or harm to its participants. Taken together, it essentially means that an editor cannot use demands for privacy and/or claims that their activities were "off-wiki" to defend against clear evidence that they were involved in (as examples) organizing a POV-pushing edit war or the posting of private information.
  • A. I have a mixed, leaning towards negative, opinion of it. It has a great potential to be used as tool to "legislate from the bench". I am very wary of "clarifications" unrelated to existing ArbCom cases. Generally, if a dispute needs to be addressed by ArbCom, there should be an ArbCom case opened.
  • A. Emergency desyssoping should only happen when there is a serious threat of disruption to the project. For example, if an administrator were to wade into the pop culture notability debate by speedy deleting articles that could be seen as "borderline" or of "questionable notability" and showed an intent to continue by ignoring community concerns, it would be appropriate to desysop the admin until the situation can be sorted out. As a counterexample, if an administrator displays some civility issues or is accused of bias, it is highly unlikely that emergency measures would be needed or appropriate.
  • A. It would be best if a means of desysopping were available to the community, but exceptional care would need to be taken to avoid it becoming a forum for revenge. A poorly-designed recall process would provide a strong disincentive for administrators to become involved in difficult disputes and certain contentious areas of the wiki, where admin intervention is needed most.
  • A. Delete unreferenced articles and articles regarding subjects whose notability is questionable, upon request from the subject. Strongly encourage the enforcement of BLP provisions. Strongly discourage BLP articles lacking references and clearly reliable third-party sources. Strongly discourage the use of references with questionable reliability.
  • A. Content-based disputes with minimal behavioral issues should generally be referred to the means of addressing content disagreements. Mediation is voluntary, so recommendations should not be confused with mandates. In cases where behavioral issues are prominent, but legitimate content disputes are present, should be resolved to address the conduct problems and thereafter referred to mediation or other avenues of dispute resolution. Mediation is not the only option. For example, if a dispute has had limited outside participation, it may be appropriate to post a neutral request for outside input on an appropriate noticeboard (such as WP:RSN) and/or file an RfC.
  • A. Every case has its own context and facts to be considered. In general, wheel wars where the participants have a clear intent to perform such actions in the future or a blatant disregard for the community's wishes should result in desysopping. Wheel wars over policies, high-profile articles, and similar areas of high impact to the wiki should probably result in emergency desyopping while ArbCom determines what, if any, long-term sanctions will be imposed.
  • A. Generally, if a majority of participants from both sides and/or uninvolved users feel that an administrator is neutral and uninvolved, it is probably true. Each case has to be considered in context because different areas of the wiki have distinct scopes of dispute and editing dynamics. An editor involved in a large number of Latter Day Saint movement articles would still probably be an uninvolved party to a dispute at Early Christianity, even if some of the same editors were involved in the article. That would preclude evidence that the administrator is carrying out "revenge" actions for losing a dispute in their regular main topic area. Other areas of the wiki have much broader (and more heated) areas of dispute. An administrator involved in acrimonious edit disputes over parapsychology and homeopathy (or otherwise involved in a broad manner in the skeptical/fringe dispute) would probably not be considered an uninvolved party in a dispute over cold fusion or acupuncture. Religion articles generally have fairly limited areas of dispute, while fringe science and alternative medicine articles have broad disputes that range over a wide variety of articles with a relatively small group of editors repeatedly involved in the same disputes. Under almost no conditions, except those of clear community disapproval and/or extreme controversy, should prior administrative actions involving a user or topic area be considered "prior involvement" for these purposes.
  • A. I believe it is a common sense extension of administrative abilities. Administrators can fully lock down articles and completely block users from editing Wikipedia with a few clicks of a mouse. It makes sense that administrators can opt to impose lessor restrictions, such as topic bans or editing constraints. These actions are subject to administrator and community review, just like any other administrative action.
  • A. I do not see why permitting fishing requests should be necessary. On the contrary, I believe permitting them would lead to significant discontent in the community and cause unneeded drama.
  • A. It seems to be common practice to remove personal information posted by minors. Policy is often formed by common good practice. It should be relatively uncontroversial to document the community practice on this issue, which is already de facto policy "on the ground".
  • A. I do not believe there is any contradiction. Taken together, they establish that there should be clear evidence of disruption and/or clear evidence of sockpuppetry linking the "new" account to the "old" account in order to justify a block. This seems to echo general community sentiment and standing good practice.
  • A. If a case is specifically addressing the conduct of (a) specific user(s) in a context unrelated to broader disputes, naming it after the user(s) is appropriate. Otherwise, cases should generally be named in relation to their disputes, usually by topic area or the specific type of behavioral issue being considered. This is simply the best practice for ease of reference and transparency. Cases should be renamed as necessary to best conform with this naming convention.
  • A. Regardless of OTRS access on the part of the undeleting administrator, OTRS deletions should never be overturned lightly and/or without consultation. The matter should be discussed with the deleting administrator and it would not be inappropriate to contact another editor with OTRS access to verify the ticket. Even absent an OTRS ticket, repeatedly restoring a copyvio that has been clearly identified as such is extremely inappropriate. The deleting administrator should not continue to wheel war. They should try contacting the undeleting administrator to let them know the seriousness of situation. Failing that, a post to the administrators' noticeboard would help resolve the matter with community support. This is a situation where communication by either wheel warring admin could have quickly and relatively painlessly resolved the situation. Restrictions, desysopping, and other measures would be based on whether or not this was an isolated incident, whether the involved admins recognize their error, and whether either involved party is likely to disrupt the project in a such fashion in the future.
  • A. I believe principles behind the basic policies are strongly binding and relatively non-negotiable. The policies themselves are subject to change and revision, but their underlying intent is fairly consistant and supported by the consensus of the community. Editors should avoid overly relying on the particular wording of policies, but the fundamental concepts are firm. Regardless of what our policies on edit warring and the three revert rule say in particular language, it is undisputed that edit and revert wars are undesirable and frowned upon by the community to such an extant that blocks are a common (and widely supported) tool for dealing with such behavior. To get a better idea of my views, please see this essay.
  • A: No. ArbCom should consider private matters before them amongst themselves. The few cases where former arbs need to contacted can be handled individually, while including them in private ArbCom deliberations and lists as a matte of fact has a great potential to harm the reputation of ArbCom and engender significant ill-will in the community. It may be useful, on occasion, to consult with former members of ArbCom to access a bit of "institutional memory". However, due to the length of arbitrator terms and the staggered election tranches, access to this institutional memory should be available within ArbCom itself. If one, or a few, former arbitrators need to be contacted about previous cases they were involved in, this rare circumstance can be handled on a case by case basis by contacting those editors directly.

Question from Ultraexactzz

Good luck with your candidacy. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. If you had to describe the ideal role of an Arbitrator in one word, what would that word be?
    • Unnecessary.

Question from MBisanz

  1. In the past there have been issues with arbitrators who did not reveal their real life identity onwiki, being harassed offwiki with the threat of revealing it. If you have not revealed your identity publicly and were threatened with someone revealing it with the intent to harass you, how would you respond? If your identity is already public, feel free to ignore this question.
    • I would not be overly concerned, except under specific circumstances. In the interest of not making an obvious target, I will not elaborate further. If you need further details or clarification, please email me to discuss the matter.

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

  1. What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
    • I would expect to be in the top tier of candidates. For seven seats being filled, I would expect to be in the top seven, if I were to accept an appointment. I would not serve unless I was one of the community's obvious choices for a seat, as judged by such a metric.
  2. Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
    • While I understand the desire for such a system, I cannot help but think it would cause more bad than good. Very often, the results of an arbitration case will make at least some people very upset, due to the nature of arbitration cases. It would be very difficult to institute a system that could not be gamed. That is not to say that nearly all such recall requests would fail, but instead that it would be difficult to avoid the use of recalls (and their likely drama magnet effect) as a weapon against an arbitrator.

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)

This is actually a question suggested originally on Wikipedia Review; however, I think it's an intelligent – and in the current climate, significant – enough question to warrant asking. – iridescent 01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?

Questions from Sarcasticidealist

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

  1. To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?
    • I believe principles behind the basic policies are strongly binding and relatively non-negotiable. The policies themselves are subject to change and revision, but their underlying intent is fairly consistant and supported by the consensus of the community. Editors should avoid overly relying on the particular wording of policies, but the fundamental concepts are firm. Regardless of what our policies on edit warring and the three revert rule say in particular language, it is undisputed that edit and revert wars are undesirable and frowned upon by the community to such an extant that blocks are a common (and widely supported) tool for dealing with such behavior. To get a better idea of my views, please see this essay.
  2. What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
    • ArbCom should consider private matters before them amongst themselves. The few cases where former arbs need to contacted can be handled individually, while including them in private ArbCom deliberations and lists as a matte of fact has a great potential to harm the reputation of ArbCom and engender significant ill-will in the community. It may be useful, on occasion, to consult with former members of ArbCom to access a bit of "institutional memory". However, due to the length of arbitrator terms and the staggered election tranches, access to this institutional memory should be available within ArbCom itself. If one, or a few, former arbitrators need to be contacted about previous cases they were involved in, this rare circumstance can be handled on a case by case basis by contacting those editors directly.
  3. At least one candidate has committed to being "open to recall" in much the same way as administrators in Category:Administrators open to recall. What is your view of the wisdom of this, and do you see yourself making a comparable commitment?

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

Question from LessHeard vanU

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

  1. Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support accepting cases that have previous earnest attempts to resolve the problem with the administrator and/or bear clear and strong indications that there is a significant threat of disruption. A blatant threat of continuing and/or severe disruption would merit immediate review by ArbCom. A long-term pattern of disruptive admin actions and/or refusal to heed community input would increase the chances that I support accepting the case. Whether this results is more accepted cases of this nature depends entirely on the circumstances of each case in relation to the above.

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

Question from Carnildo

  1. How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
    • That all depends on the caseload and email list. If it's very slow, perhaps only a couple of hours. If it is busy, upwards of twenty to twenty-five hours per week.

Question(s) from LtPowers

  • Please see the answer to #1 of FT2's questions. If you need further clarification, please let me know.

Questions from Pixelface

  1. Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you were listed as an involved party. (I am speaking of closed cases as well as active cases). Do you think the remedies given in the case(s) were helpful in resolving any disputes?
    • I have never been listed as an involved party in an arbitration case.
  2. Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you, acting as a non-member of the committee, have provided a statement, or evidence, or /Workshop material. Do you feel it was worth your time in each case?
  3. Please list all the requests for arbitration you've made. (If you can't remember them all, please describe some of the ones you *do* remember).
    • I have not made any requests for arbitration.

Question from WilyD

  1. During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally). While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:
  1. Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over a regular editing issue? Are there any special considerations? If it is not appropriate, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
    • Yes, if by "regular editing issue" you mean a 3RR violation or other offense that is usually expected to result in a block. Adminship is not a get out of jail free card. The drama generating potential should be considered. Also, the administrator should be provided with the same consideration as any established user in good standing. As with regular cases, communication with the editor is an expected first step, as opposed to a block then discuss approach.
  2. Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when? If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
    • Issuing blocks over the use of administrative tools is highly inadvisable. The drama potential is simply too great. Communication with the administrator should be the first step. Failing that, raise the issue(s) for review on the administrators' noticeboard. If the problematic behavior forms a pattern and feedback from other adminstrators has resolved the situation, an RfC to generate community discussion of the behavior should be undertaken. If the admin's colleagues and the broader community cannot resolve the issue, then it is a matter for ArbCom to resolve. Keep in mind that this is a general statement and that in particularly disruptive and pernacious cases, it may be appropriate for ArbCom to review the situation immediately. If it is a matter of a single block, a clear warning to avoid such actions in the future should suffice. If there is a larger pattern or the blocks are malicious, desyopping would probably be a prominent consideration.
    • The point of blocks is to prevent disruption and harm. If a block is likely to cause an explosive dramafest or otherwise disrupt the project, it is not serving the intended purpose of the tool.

Question from Davewild

  1. Do you support reducing the length of Arbitrators terms to under 3 years, and if you do and are elected, how will you go about trying to get this implemented?
    • I do not have a strong opinion, but it is clear a significant portion of the community supports such a change. Some discussions are ongoing regarding this issue. Whether or not I would support the change as a member of the Committee would depend entirely on the proposal. For example, if some variety of the two year term/yearly election proposal were put to ArbCom for approval, I would support the change. If the eighteen month term/twice yearly election proposal came up, I would probably oppose it due to the frequency of the elections. However, it is important to note that it is not entirely clear if Jimbo, ArbCom, the community, or some combination thereof is vested with the authority to make such a change. Similarly, the appropriate process for such a change (ArbCom supermajority, community vote, etc) is not defined.

Thanks. Davewild (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Heimstern

  1. Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
    • Both ArbCom and the community should be more forceful in managing disruptive editors in those areas. Topic bans and revert restrictions are both viable measures that can be imposed by both ArbCom and the community. We do not do enough to address users in controversial areas whose principal activities are soapboxing and edit warring.
  2. Civility restrictions: Civility restrictions imposed by the Arbcom seem to frequently prove divisive among administrators enforcing them. Frequently, one administrator feels the user in question has been uncivil and should be blocked, while another disagrees and unblocks shortly thereafter. Should the committee seek to change this? If so, how? Different restrictions? Different wording? Using them less frequently or not at all? Is there anything you would change about the committee's approach to the civility policy?

Questions from Badger Drink

  1. It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?
    • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2 are prime examples of untimely and unsatisfactory resolution, as well as poor communication and case handling. I would have taken a more proactive approach in policing the arbitration pages and communicating with the community, as well as pushing for quicker resolution and more on-wiki discussion by other arbitrators. I also would have pushed for more definitive conclusions and remedies.
  2. What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
    • Spectacularly and unfortunately mishandled. From my knowledge of the circumstances, there is no reason a public RfAR could not have been heard regarding the circumstances, in place of private consideration. It is important for both community perception and principle to undertake public cases in the absence of a compellingly strong reason to do otherwise.
  3. This final question may be frustratingly broad - and might be superceded by smaller, more focused questions on individual aspects of the incident. But let's just get a broad overview for the time being: What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?
    • There is a significant demand for a less top-down approach and greater transparency. A substantial portion of the community has strong objections to ArbCom insituting new policy and processes. The desire for increased transparency not only relates to case handling and rationales, but also to increased openness about the stands and opinions of the arbitrators. Another pertinent point raised is the desire to see ArbCom be treated more as the venue of last resort, as is intended as its purpose. Barring exceptional cases, the many options of dispute resolution available to editors should be used before seeking the intervention of ArbCom.

Questions from roux

This question is to gauge your general thoughts on how civility applies as a general principle across WP. Please read the proposals here first.

1) Which conceptual statement(s), if any, in section A would you support or oppose, and why?

  • Oppose all. A.1 establishes a double-standard. A.2 has a contradictory "proposal" and "rationale". A.3 establishes a softened version of A.1's double standard. See my answer to #1 of The Land Surveyor's questions for thoughts related to this issue.

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?

  • Oppose all. B.1 is an overly complicated way of providing a last chance to an editor with ban worthy behavioral problems. Just clearly inform them of the nature of the problem and that they are being extended one last chance. B.2 simply uses a far too broad brush and caricatures through oversimplification the community's concerns regarding civility paroles. B.3 strikes me as a "lesser evil" or "something, even a broken something, is better than nothing" proposal.
2) a) If you oppose all proposed restrictions, but view low-level civility as a concern: what restrictions, if any, would you propose as alternatives to those outlined in section B?
  • I believe the real answer lies in having the community focus on building on a consensus regarding civility expectations. Focusing on enforcement compromises is quite simply barking up the wrong tree. It will only reinforce divisions and fail to resolve the underlying issue of differing expectations of civility.

Thank you for answering, and best of luck with the election. [roux » x] 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Thatcher

1. The Arbitration Committee handles a wide variety of complex situations on the private mailing list, some presenting moral and ethical dilemmas that never come to the full attention of the wider community. How would you handle some of these situations?

A. A checkuser forwards to the Arbcom mailing list evidence that a large number of vandal accounts share a single IP address and a single user agent with an administrator. After internal discussion, the IP address is blocked Anon only, ACB, under the theory that since the IP is a workplace, it might be shared, but that if the admin is the vandal, he will "get the hint." The admin takes a short unannounced hiatus, then returns as if nothing had happened. Right call or wrong call and why? Does the kind of vandalism make a difference?

  • CheckUser isn't a magic bullet. At a workplace, the likelihood that multiple people edit Wikipedia is fairly decent. They would be very likely to share the same IP address and user agent. While the timing of the hiatus may seem suspicious, it is not that unusual for people to take a few days off from Wikipedia now and again. Unless there was further evidence of the admin's involved, there wouldn't be much to do except keep an eye on things.

B. A checkuser who is an active editor of a particular article or topic sees a new user acting suspiciously like a previously banned user. What should the checkuser do?

(a) Run the check himself. After all, he is the most familiar with the banned user's editing patterns, and if the account turns out to be an unrelated editor, there is no privacy violation as long as the checkuser does not discuss the findings with anyone.
(b) Ask an uninvolved checkuser to evaluate the need for a check, and then run the check if needed. Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is worth the delay and inconvenience.
(c) Write your own answer.
  • (a) and (b) are both problematic because the involved checkuser is performing the check. The checkuser should file a request for checkuser like any other editor, detailing the evidence and reasons they believe the user is the banned user. The community has made it very clear that it takes a very dim view of involved checkusers running checks. The needless drama can be avoided by using the normal process.

C. User:Smith is banned after a long series of behavioral problems including harassment of User:Jones, which Smith continues on his personal blog. A checkuser presents evidence that Smith has returned as User:Smythe. His editing is without incident and he is avoiding Jones. The Committee decides to ignore the Smythe account. Some time later, Smith emails the Committee, disclosing the Smythe account and pointing out Smythe's good edits, and asking to be unbanned. However, he has continued to post negative comments about Jones on his blog, and Jones objects to allowing Smith to edit under any account name. What should be done?

  • The banned user should remain banned. The harassment still has a chilling effect on the victim. Wherever Smythe edits, Jones is likely to avoid. The potential for gaming the system is immense. We shouldn't take a position that effectively pretends the harassment doesn't exist because it is not on Wikipedia.

2. In private discussions about a pending arbitration case, there is a split between a group of Arbitrators who want strong sanctions and a group that want mild or no sanctions. Is it better to propose a middle of the road decision that everyone can sort of support, or to write a proposed decision with both the mild and severe remedies and have an open vote? What should happen if neither the mild nor severe remedy gets a majority? Does public disagreement improve or impair the Committee's credibility?

  • I would support posting mild and severe sanctions, alongside one or more proposed compromises. If neither mild nor severe remedies generate majority support due to the split, effort should be focused on crafting compromise remedies based on the rationales and concerns raised. A bit of public disagreement and debate is healthy for the Committee. Rather than relying on rumor and hearsay about disagreements in the Committee and the positions of various arbitrators, the community could instead rely on the clear record. It also better permits the community and participants to take part in the process, through the proposed decision talk page and workshop.

3. Just as there are consequences for taking action as an Arbitrator, there are consequences for inaction. The mailing list receives 70-100 messages per week. I do not believe it is humanly possible for an editor to remain fully engaged in whatever aspects of Wikipedia they currently enjoy, and also be fully engaged in the business of the Arbitration Committee. If you do not fully engage in the mailing list, you might miss a legitimate ban appeal, or the chance to comment on an important private matter, or an important policy discussion. If you skip an Arbitration case or two in order to spend time writing articles, you might later discover that the decision had provisions you find incorrect or objectionable. How will you balance your regular wiki-work with participation on Arbcom? If you opt out of some matters to avoid having all your time consumed by Arbcom, what will you do if those matters are resolved in an unsatisfactory matter?

  • In general, I will place participation in ArbCom matters as a priority, while trying to maintain at least a minimal level of non-AC related activity. On occasion, I will termporarily reduce my participation to focus on other wiki activities. It is important for arbitrators to stay grounded and to occasionally "get some fresh air". If I opt out and a resolution is unsatisfactory to me, I will first communicate my concerns and views to my colleagues. If I consider it a serious problem, I may file a motion to amend or clarify the action, when appropriate.

4. Have you disclosed your real name and employer? If not, are you prepared to have that information involuntarily disclosed? Would such involuntary disclosure impact your service on the Arbitration Committee?

Questions from Rschen7754

Arbcom questions 2008 - these will be asked at the December 2008 elections and scored on a hidden rubric, which will determine my level of support.

Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2007, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support.

  1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
    • While the dispute was spilling over in multiple areas of the wiki, the evidence and workshop pages are both very modest and straight-forward for such a long-running case. It should have been resolved in considerably less time, though I accept there may be factors accounting for the length of time that I am not aware of.
  2. a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
    • WikiProjects are cooperative groups that help maintain particular areas or address specific issues. WikiProjects have no special dispensation or place to enforce standards on articles. WikiProject members are free to propose alterations, deletions or additions to the body of rules, as much as any member or group in the community. WikiProjects can maintain a voluntary set of standards and goals, intended as a guide for the members of the project as they improve their topic area. However, consensus may not support those standards "in the wild". Essentially, WikiProjects are subject to the normal wiki process, including rules proposals and consensus.
  3. Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
  4. Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
    • Canvassing is determined by the specific audience and message, not the medium of communication.
  5. a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
    • Vandalism and poorly done but good faith edits should not be conflated. If a vandal is making a severe mess of things then a block would be in order. If there is a vandalism problem with a series of new users and/or IPs, then protection would be a valid option. Rollback is appropriate in the case of all vandalism edits. Regarding good faith but horrible edits, rollback should not be used. Undo and other revert options are available without treating the well-intentioned user as a vandal. Someone should take the time and effort to explain to the editor why their edits were problematic, instead of instantly opting for blocks. If after the problem has been explained the editor continues to make edits that cause a difficult to clean up mess, then a block for disruption would be in order.
  6. An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
    • It sounds like the editor is being disruptive. A good faith effort to explain policy, involve the editor in productive discussion, and explain the problem with the approach should be taken first. If the editor continues to disrupt the project by ignoring consensus, refusing to heed the community's feedback, etc then they should be blocked.
  7. An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
    • As with above, a solid effort should be made to communicate with the editor. It may be a good idea to suggest the Simple English Wikipedia, in the case of users with a limited grasp of the English language. A little extra effort to explain some of the processes, editing functions, and so forth may be needed. Sometimes editors who have trouble understanding the environment may act disruptively. If after an exhaustive attempt to bring them up to speed they remain disruptive, blocks may be in order.
  8. a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
    • Serious ongoing disruption from an editor unresponsive to administrator and community feedback regarding their behavior. If any of the editors described in #5-7 remained unresponsive after copious attempts to communicate the issues and multiple blocks, a formal ban would be justified.
  9. (This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
    • Increasing bureaucracy, proliferating rules, centralization of authority, lack of assertion of community ownership, scaling issues, and the move towards formalized readings of policy over a focus on the underlying principles.

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 06:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from PhilKnight

  1. In what situations would you recuse yourself? Obviously, I'm not asking for a generic answer, but instead I'm genuinely interested in what subject areas, or conflicts involving which users, you would recuse yourself. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Imagine there is a case involving an editor who had been pushing a scientific racist viewpoint, and then another editor describes them as racist. Then an uninvolved admin blocks the second editor for a personal attack. How should this be handled?
    • Based on the context. If the word racist were part of an ad hominem attack filled with colorful language, then it's obviously a good block. If the word rascist were part of a well-reasoned post objecting to the POV-pusher's recent edits, then it's obviously a bad block. In most cases away from the former end of the spectrum, I would contact the blocking admin and ask them to reconsider. If they declined to reconsider the block, I would put it up on AN for review. If they failed to respond, I would unblock the user and leave an explanation for the block administrator.

Questions from Mailer Diablo

  1. Say you are given the power to implement or abolish one policy on Wikipedia by fiat, with immediate effect, no questions asked. What would that be?
    • I wouldn't abolish any policy, as such, though I would gladly merge a number of policies to reverse a bit of sprawl. I will provide a few examples. No personal attacks could be merged into civility using only a paragraph or less (each). Three revert rule could be rolled into edit warring with a small amount of text similar to the previous example. Both of the merge targets are rules that can be clearly stated in a concise manner and can be seen a subset of another policy. Clearly, civility precludes personal attacks and edit warring includes revert warring.
  2. Hence or otherwise (of Q1), should ArbCom be in the business of creating new policy, amend an existing policy, or abolish any policy as a result of any outcome of a case? If so, should the community be consulted on such matters beforehand?
    • ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generall be allowed to resolve the matter.
  3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?(AC/IRC)
    • The IRC channels related to the English Wikipedia fall partially under the jurisdiction of ArbCom, in the sense that off-wiki activities that affect on-wiki activities fall under the remit of ArbCom. For example, if a block that is based on an IRC conversation is under scrutiny , ArbCom should be able to review the channel logs containing the conversation. However, for the basic day-to-day functioning of the IRC channels, it should be left to the channel owners and ops to manage. It is impractical and generally questionable for ArbCom to assert ownership, supervisory control, or similar measures over IRC.
  4. "Change We Need" and "The same old Washington that's broken" is a favourite mantra for candidates running for office, and that includes this election. Would you, and how would you reform ArbCom? And how can editors be sure that you will stay true to your promise?
    • See my response to #1 of FT2's questions. There is no particular proof that I can offer besides my earnest word that I intend to stick to the principles I have espoused.

Questions from Giggy

  1. a/s/l?
  2. What is your opinion on the apparent divide in editors who focus primarily in mainspace, and those who focus primarily in project space? What would you do to help ease conflicts that come as a result of clashes between these editors? This is a deliberately open ended question.
    • There are elements of a culture clash between exopedians and metapedians, but outright conflict is fairly limited. There are a small handful of high-profile cases creating an image of a broader and deeper problem than exists. There is certainly a trend among some mainspace editors to feel like "the reality on the ground" is not understood by other editors. Similarly, there is a trend among some project space editors to feel as though the "nuts and bolts" of process and policy are not understood by other editors. However, disagreements are limited to peaceful philosophical differences in the vast majority of cases. On the average, it is far more likely to see editors with distinct mainspace focuses sharply disagreeing (for example, over the appropriate application and/or expression of policy) than to see a clear conflict between an expodian and metapedian. Regardless, most disagreements between expodians and metapedians can be resolved through normal discussion and channels of dispute resolution, probably best served by an outside party able to help both sides understand each other's views.
  3. What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
    • "Useful" is a rather subjective measure. In general, the blanket reversion of banned users' edits is a good thing. A banned editor is usually banned for good reason. Making exceptions of any sort sends the wrong signal and leaves the door wide open to game the system.
  4. Pick one arbitration case opened in the last year that contains a final decision with which you disagree. How do you think the case should have been handled, what different proposals would you have made, etc.? Again, somewhat open ended.
    • See my response to #1 of Badger Drink's questions. If you would like a more specific response, or have a further question, please let me know.
  5. Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
  6. Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
    • Yes. If I cannot participate and show faith in the process, how can I expect anyone else to do the same?

Thank you and good luck. Giggy (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Questions added via the global question list.[reply]

Questions From ϢereSpielChequers

For the following questions please don't count any cases that you were involved in, or if you'd been on Arbcom would have recused yourself for reasons such as friendship with a participant.

  1. How many arbitration cases have you fully reviewed (or participated in as an Arbcomm member)?
    • I have reviewed nearly all the past ArbCom cases in the public archives, at least briefly. I have carefully read through about 2/3 of the cases, weighted towards more recent cases.
  2. In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
    • Nearly all, with a few exceptions.
  3. In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
    • About one out of three, though much of my disagreement comes down to a matter of degree or the specific remedies passed, as opposed to the underlying rationale.
  4. How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?
    • I do not believe it should be difficult to handle the consideration of new evidence after a decision has been made. All available information should be taken into consideration. However, the burden would be on the person (or people) attempting to present new evidence to show information that is likely to have an impact on the decision in the case. If the evidence is substantial and copious, a motion to reopen the case or create a supplemental case page may be appropriate. If the evidence is concise and substantive, a motion to amend should be sufficient. The normal processes can accomodate this well.

ϢereSpielChequers 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Maxim

  1. What is your stance on wheel-warring? What do you define as wheel-warring? As an arbitrator, how would you respond to a case surrounding a wheel war?
    • The undoing or restoration of an administrative that is likely to cause drama and conflict. I am specific because blocks and other administrative actions are reviewed and overturned every day without great ado or fuss. The cases that cause the most furor are also the cases where it was most obvious that the wheel-warring would lead to considerable conflict and drama. In almost all cases, it won't cause any harm to leave the action in place while it is discussed with the acting administrator and/or undergoing community review. Wheel-warring is problematic because it leads to inconsistant enforcement and disruption to the project. I would respond based on the records of the involved administrators, the likelihood of future wheel-warring and the amount of potential disruption that was obvious before the wheel war.
  2. What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
    • Only a well-designed system would be satisfactory. Most suggested implementations (that I have seen) would effectively be disincentive for administrators to moderate high conflict areas. The potential for "revenge" recalls is generally very high. It also be very difficult to produce the consensus necessary to create a clear policy and process for administrator recall.
  3. What is your opinion on adminbots? The bot policy was updated to allow adminbots to bypass RfA, going only through BRfA, and fully-automated unapproved adminbots were required to be approved via BRfA. What is your opinion on handling unapproved adminbots? What is your general opinion on high-speed admin tools, which are not fully automated (like Twinkle)?
    • I do not particularly hold strong opinions in this area. The update to policy was fine and seems like a good compromise the community can support as a whole. Unapproved adminbots should be treated like any other unapproved bot. Twinkle and other tools are just fine, but they do require a thoughtful and attentive user. An unusually high volume of edits may receive some strong scrutiny. Poorly supervised edits using scripts should be treated likely poorly supervised bots.

Questions from Kristen Eriksen

1. In the course of ascertaining whether editors have violated our verifiability policy, arbitrators may be called upon to determine questions of source reliability. Should certain peer-reviewed journals be considered reliable sources when they are published by otherwise respectable organizations, but engage in a practice of lending credence to fields of endevour and subject matter widely held in disrepute by the scientific community? As an example, consider the journal "Homeopathy" [2], which is published by Elsevier, but which regularly carries positive experimental results for homeopathic preparations.

    • Of course such journals are reliable sources, unless they have a particular reputation for being unreliable outside of their subject matter of choice. Being significantly out of step with the mainstream, they are unlikely to be appropriate sources to cite outside of a limited topic area, because of our rule about undue weight.

2. What is the intent of our policy that WP:NOT#CENSORED? How does the presence or absence of content covered by that policy affect Wikipedia's utility, reputation, and acceptance amongst the academic community and the general public?

    • The intent is to prohibit the impeding of topic coverage, broadly construed. This covers everything from moral to intellectual objections. As examples, sexuality articles and minority opinion topics (respectively). It harms our reputation in some circles. Many people will find much of our content offensive for any number of reasons, including commercial bias, immoral subjects, cult promotion, pseudoscience coverage, etc. However, that same openness and lack of censorship is also a large part of Wikipedia's positive reputation, particularly as a common first source for information.

3. Consistent with our neutral point of view policy, what relative weight should be given to popular views and scientific findings where the two strongly conflict? For example, consider the finding of this study, and the previous research cited therein, that, in the United States, children seeing their parents naked or having sex did not result in adverse effects on their physical or psychological health. Most residents of the United States would strongly disagree with such a conclusion -- it is quite likely that we could, with sufficient effort, locate appropriate surveys or other reliable sources as to this state of popular opinion.

  • The relative weight provided should be based on balance of views presented in reliable sources. That is the basic point of the undue weight section of NPOV. In such cases, the predominant scientific views are most likely to represent a significant majority of views in the body of reliable sources. Please see my reponse to Rspeer's question for further elaboration.

Questions from Celarnor

  1. What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (.e,g, types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?
    • I believe there are three main limits on ArbCom's ability to write such remedies: The fundamental principles of Wikipedia represented by our rules and the will of the community to enforce the remedies. A remedy that runs counter to the extant rules will produce confusion and conflict. ArbCom should not be in the business of creating new rules and processes by fiat, as runs counter to established good practice and has encountered strong opposition from the community as a practice. Regarding the latter point, if the community is unwilling to enforce a remedy requiring action on the part of administrators and the broader community, it is fundamentally meaningless.
  2. What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
    • Arbitrators are expected to hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior and action. Their opinions also tend to hold a considerable amount of weight, and thus they should exercise caution with the awareness of this impact. Also, arbitrators should encourage the community and individual editors to avail themselves of the wide variety of dispute resolution options available outside of ArbCom.

Questions from rootology

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

Questions:

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

  • I understand the reasoning behind the bundling, but I think it was a bad call. Though some of the individual cases were related, the evidence was extensive for each individual case and deserved inidvidual consideration. I believe many issues could have been better addressed and explored in separate cases. I am wary of "omnibus" cases as a general rule. Like in real world situations, bundling so many extensive and detailed issues into a single item for consideration can often serve to dilute and muddle the issues being considered and addressed. I feel the bundling of the cases in this instance had that negative effect on the case.

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

  • No one is capable of perfect action, including always discerning personal bias. Every arbitrator should strive to be aware of their personal limitations and preconceptions, recusing whenever there is a distinct bias. Candidates that provide a strong reason for voters to doubt their capacity in this kind of self-awareness are unsuitable for the position. The potential for misjudgment and disruptive drama is far too great to permit arbitrators unable to recuse as appropriate. Also, see my responses to #1 of PhilKnight's questions and Ncmvocalist's questions for details of when and why I would recuse as an arbitrator.

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

  • This is not a bad idea, but policy changes should only implemented with a clear community consensus involving a broad discussion. Otherwise, the potential to game the system and manipulate the policy is too great.

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

  • I think this is a good idea.

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

  • No. It is strongly related to the idea of a "mandate", as used in real world politics. If an arbitrator does not have the endorsement/support of the community, this will have strong negative consequences with the community's relationship with that arbitrator and (as a consequence) the Committee as a whole.

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

  • Prioritize community consensus and transparency, with harm prevention and privacy as fundamental ethical rules.

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

a) The Community
b) Jimbo Wales
c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee
d) The Wikimedia Foundation
Feel free to explain your ordering choices and your rationale behind them, if so inclined.
  • a, d, c, b.

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

Questions from TomasBat

  1. In general, which of these 2 concepts do you regard as higher priority? The concept of "user" as another human being or "what's best for the encyclopedia"? (would you be 200% fair and patient to a relatively new good faith user at the expense of commiting to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)
    • I believe the two concepts balance out. We should usually assume good faith and avoid snapping at newcomers. Taking the time to explain things to a new user make not seem to have a great potential benefit to encyclopedia. However, it is a very inexact and subjective process to measure someone's potential. It must also be considered that in the great majority of cases enough can be imparted to prevent disruption. The former shows us at our best ideal in dealing with newcomers. The latter provides a substantive reason to make the effort, for the benefit of individual users and the project as a whole. Also see my answers to #5-7 of Rschen's questions for related thoughts.

Questions from Newyorkbrad

1. Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:

(A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
(B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;
(C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on WP:RfAR) and for clarification or modification of prior decisions;
(D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users on the arbitrators' mailing list;
(E) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;
(F) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
(G) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain).
  • A, B, C, D, E, G. The balance of work will depend largely on the composition of the workload and the actions of other arbitrators. If other arbitrators have already raised all the options I would consider, I would focus more on B than A. If other arbitrators have already handled an appeal or voiced an opinion I agree with, D may not be needed or limited to "me too". I have no current intention to seek checkuser status. Regarding (G), I intend to be active, as needed, in presenting questions and concerns to the community for discussion. (See my responses to #1 and #5 of FT's questions for further context.)

2. Please review the current arbitration policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, as well as the proposed updating and revision of the policy that I posted a few weeks ago (based in part on some input from the ArbCom RfC over the summer) at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating and the later draft posted by arbitrator FT2 at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating/FT2. Do you have any comments on the proposed changes? Are there any changes you would support to the policy, or to ArbCom's current procedures, beyond those proposed there?

    • The earlier draft has a greater clarity in organization and presentation. It's a bit easier to find things and follow the flow of logic. There are some portions that concern me, as they fail to take into account some community concerns. For example, "create procedures through which policy may be enforced" is a scary phrase to me, representing some of the trend towards process and policy creation that has ruffled many community feathers. The later draft does a better job in addressing my general concerns and elaborating appropriately in some areas, but the organization is a bit more difficult to follow and some points are muddled or qualified ambiguously. The general spirit of the second combined with the clarity and organization of the first would be closer to ideal. I also think a closer look at general community commentary and the ArbCom RfC would be warranted to ensure that the community's principal concerns are being addressed.

3. Although the committee was quite busy when I joined it in January, and there have been a few high-profile "mega" cases in the past few months, in general the Arbitration Committee's caseload has been lower during the past three months or so than at any time since the committee was created in 2004. Please share any thoughts you have on this situation, including its causes and whether it is a good or bad thing.

    • The presence of megacases, particularly the length of dispute in some instances, are indicative that there are simmering problems ready to burst into a boil that are being unaddressed by the Committee and other areas of dispute resolution. It is noteworthy that in some of these cases, the parties to the case have been present as parties in Arbitration previously. These cases are especially important to note, so that ArbCom and the community can learn from the failure to address the problems. In some cases, it should be: What can we do to help this administrator working in that difficult area? In other cases, it should be: What measure needs to be taken against this disruptive user to prevent disruption to that area? Regardless, if an editor is showing up as a party in ArbCom cases multiple times, there is a failure in our system and it needs to be addressed.

Questions from UninvitedCompany

  1. Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
    • Generally, a sprinkling of random topics, with the focus in mainspace generally on "top level" mainstream religious articles, such as Laozi and History of early Christianity. Much of my time on Wikipedia is broadly spent on dispute resolution, including mediation (formal and informal), answering third opinions, providing advice, and so on.
  2. Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
    • My secondary and professional education primarily focused on electronics and communication. My post-secondary education focused on philosophy and religious studies. I served in the military. I then worked in call centers as a phone agent and later as a manager. I currently work as a professional writer with projects ranging from cross-genre fiction to niche market social commentary.
  3. Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
    • My main involvement in other online communities is participating in some Creative Commons content projects and local hobby groups, nothing particularly noteworthy
  4. Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
    • Occasionally after providing an article review or otherwise acting as an outside party, I have become involved in providing solicited feedback, advice, and so forth. I have continued to participate in a similar manner in some cases after providing a third opinion or the close of a mediation case. This also includes email exchanges with some involved users, discussing the situation, providing advice and engaging in general discussion about wiki-editing. I believe the rest of my involvement has been fairly "routine", in volunteering for informal and formal mediation, etc.
  5. Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations? If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?
    • I have a strong antipathy for the International Church of Christ. I would recuse. I am Episcopalian. I have strong libertian sympathies in politics, strongly favoring social liberal/fiscally conservative candidates of all parties. If a case came up that involved a conflict between such a candidate and opponents, or involved a political issue where personal liberty was a primary consideration, I am likely to recuse, depending on the particulars. See my responses to #1 of PhilKnight's questions and Ncmvocalist's questions for related thoughts.
  6. Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
    • I served as a team leader in the military, equivalent to a fireteam leader or assistant squad leader. I worked in call center management, ranging from team leader (or assistant manager) to assistant department manager. This includes roles in client relations and project management. I also have experience in managing and running small-scale social events.
  7. Have you publicly revealed your actual name and address? Do you plan to do so if elected? If not, how do you plan to respond to any threats you may receive to publicize this information?
    • No. Possibly, as I am considering sharing my real name. Roll with it.
  8. Do you have any friends, family members, or other people close to you IRL who edit Wikipedia? What are their user names and their relationships to you?
    • Yes. I recently found out that I know Pakaran in real life. We share some social activities and similar circles of friends.
  9. Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
  10. What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee? Do they all carry equal weight?
    • Arbitrators should see themselves as serving the community as a whole, not individual constituencies.
  11. What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept? Refuse?
    • In general, the principal cases accepted should involve intractable disputes, ongoing disruptive behavior, and/or similarly serious long-term concerns. In most cases, they should also indicate that other dispute resolutions have been exhausted. These requirements may be waived in the case of rare exceptions, such as an admin using the bit to disrupt the project or otherwise acting in such a fashion that demands emergency desysopping.
  12. How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
    • It should be treated like any other form of disruption, though additional awareness of the off-wiki problem moving forward is important. If someone is using off-wiki means to harass another editor or to organize an edit war, they should be just as liable for the actions as if they took place on-wiki. In some cases, off-wiki harassment can be far worse for the target than on-wiki attacks.
  13. What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
    • What serves well in one situation may not be well-suited in another. The context of each case and the particular problems being addressed affect what will be most effective. It is impossible to make an accurate blanket statement about which remedies work the best.
  14. Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?
    • Not entirely as such. My plans may affect change in some areas, but also may not. Please see my answers to ... for related details about my views and intentions.
  15. Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most? Why?
    • Newyorkbrad. He is exceedingly principled, prudent, and thoughtful. Mindspillage, for the same reasons.
  16. To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
    • Some equivalent to the to "clear and convincing evidence" standard. For those unfamiliar with with the term, it is a middle ground between finding that something is simply likely and judging something to be beyond reasonable doubt. Essentially, if something is considerably more like than unlikely, it falls under the standard.
  17. What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
    • I am not entirely pleased with some past decisions and methods of governance. However, the Foundation is the owner and sets the inviolate principles of the project through the w:Foundation principles. They also provide the hardware and bandwidth necessary for the project. Regardless of any opinions about individual actions, I certainly recognize the place and contributions of the Foundation to this project.
  18. To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
    • OTRS is often difficult and trying work that does generally not receive much thankfulness or recognition from the broader community. I deeply appreciate their efforts and support their actions in resolving problems brought to their attention.
  19. Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
    • No.

Question from BirgitteSB

Due to concerns over the way a non-public case was handled I once suggested some minimum standards for such cases [3]. Which follow slightly clarified:

I believe such standards will not only lessen the drama surrounding such cases, but are also necessary to have any confidence in the quality of the decision reached. In public cases the evidence presentations are usually left up the community and seldom is any one presentation comprehensive. However the scrutiny of the larger community is generally sufficient to tease out the weaknesses and strengths of the multiple presentations. Since private cases are necessarily denied this scrutiny it is imperative that evidence presentations are much stronger than in public cases. So I believe it is necessary for an arbitrator to collect the submissions of evidence into a comprehensive presentation even though such a thing is not done with public cases. Having two arbs put together presentations in isolation is an check on the subconscious bias of "finding what one is looking for." Allowing the parties to review the presentations concerning themselves is a final check on any misunderstandings, and a commonsense measure to build confidence in the whole process. How well do you agree with these suggested practices as I have outlined them?--BirgitteSB 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is a fine idea. It's certainly one way of addressing concerns that is viable and likely to resolve the issue. An important aspect missing from the concept is the public presentation of results. Some information may not be able to be disclosed on-wiki for any variety of reasons, especially information affecting privacy and involving personal details. However, as much information as reasonably possible should be disclosed to the community.


Questions from Lar

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

  1. Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
    • The overall approach is currently too uneven and mired in arguments over minutae. A clearer policy, accompanied by a clear assessment of common good practice, is a necessity.
    • a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
    • An "opt" system is well-intentioned, but lacking in my opinion. A couple of examples, regarding my line of thought: What if someone doesn't realize they have an article on Wikipedia and would want to opt out? The ability to opt-in would make Wikipedia even a further target of promotional campaigns.
    • b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
    • A default to delete position on BLP deletion discussions is not a perfect solution, but it is viable, works within current process and is likely to achieve the result of removing questionable BLPs.
  2. Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
    • a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
    • It is obviously a policy consideration. Just because something involves content does not mean it is automatically a "content question", as commonly defined on Wikipedia.
    • b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
    • A bit of both. ArbCom imposed a new process, which I believe is the root of the strong disagreement from some quarters of the community. However, it is the point of ArbCom to mandate, as in strongly enforce, policy. ArbCom could have easily set the tone by having a strong decision with strong statements about BLP, such as a principle that administrators have a generous latitude in enforcing BLP and a statement encouraging the community to better address BLP issues. If necessary, ArbCom as a committee, or an individual concerned arbitrator, can raise the issue for community discussion at the BLP talk page, notifying the community of the discussion through normal venues such as policy RfC, the BLP noticeboard, the policy village pump and the administrators' noticeboard.
    • c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
    • A clear survey of common good practice and a better version of the BLP policy that matches that are necessary. This can be accomplished through any number of means, including a broad community discussion on the policy village pump and RfC. The community needs to come together and develop a coherent policy and approach in order to resolve the issues.
  3. It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?
    • There are obviously scaling issues. The project has grown well beyond the limitations of a few monkeyspheres (or see here for an on-wiki explanation). However, on the local article level and other small-scale discussions, consensus is still a viable model. It is the broader issues of policy and policy enforcement that have a far greater difficulty with the consensus model, due to the much larger number of users affected and participating in the discussions. It may be worthwhile in such broader areas to consider a "mixed" model, such as process with a discussion phase and a voting phase or a process similar to RfC with views and support/oppose signatures and rationales.
  4. Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?
    • I would like to see stable revisions implemented with an option to see the latest "draft" version. I believe the community has largely stumbled over the process for implementation. There is a profound lack of disagreement about how the articles should be reviewed and approved. ArbCom has no substantial role in thise. It is primarily a community concern that needs to be resolved with a new process and policy to implement the change. It is noteworthy that I am general opposed to expanding the proliferation of rules and processes.
  5. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
    • a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
    • It is a Foundation principle and I appreciate the desire for open participation.
    • b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
    • It would be exceedingly difficult to change at this late juncture.
    • c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
    • In most cases, the change of heart is related to harassment and other attacks suffered. We shouldn't force someone to continue enduring harassment. Oversight and deletion are appropriate tools to protect privacy. Once something is known it is almost impossible to make it unknown again, but that should not preclude us from protecting people from harassment and privacy violations.
    • d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
    • Acknowledging public disclosures is almost excluded from outing by definition. If someone has outed themselves, pointing to that admission is hardly outing. However, it should be noted that such disclosures may be misused by "accusers" for the purpose of personal attacks, accusations of guilt by association and other harassment.
    • e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)
    • No, but I would reveal my real name if elected and it is clearly desired by the community. I am considering revealing my real name regardless. I do not believe it should be a requirement for arbs to reveal their personal identity. The vast majority of people on the project are normal everyday people. ArbCom work exposes arbs to a lot of potential harassment and serious threats. I would not be comfortable with forcing someone in that position to reveal their private information.
    • f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
    • Yes. They do not make unrealistic promises while clearly indicating their idealistic goal. It is something that will be difficult for the Foundation to micromanage. Oversight is appropriate for handling the problematic disclosure of personal information. The WMF could reinforce the fundamental principles of open editing and privacy (which converge nicely in psuedonymous editing). Arbcom should deal clearly with outing and harassment. They should not be tolerable behaviors.
    • g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)
    • Generally, such personal attacks should be treated with indefinite blocks and bans. Harassment and real life harm are serious considerations and a fundamental violation of basic social expectations.
  6. Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
    • a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
    • The project should take it upon itself to do so, if the community feels it is a serious concern.
    • b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
    • It has the responsibility to turn over any relevant information to the abused party and law enforcement officials. The WMF should oversight through office actions any relevant on-wiki harassment or divulging of personal details. This is in accord with the provisions of the privacy policy, which permits the disclosure of private information as described above. Oversight policy and office action precedent permit the oversight actions.
    • c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
    • The editor should be taken precautions of their own to prevent further recurrances. In general, harassment and privacy violations against such an editor should be taken very seriously, as there is a substantial potential for harm.
    • d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
    • My answers above should clearly convey my opinion. In the case of a person whose article is affected, they have the additional option of seeking assistance from the OTRS team.
    • e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
    • If an editor is following another user around in an obvious attempt to cause duress and inconvenience, it is "wikistalking" or harassment. If an editor has an established history of disruptive behavior, reviewing their actions and interceding to counteract disruption is usually quite legitimate. Factors to consider include intent, the presence of bad blood, evidence of gaming the system, and block/sanction histories. The more likely the intent to disrupt or stronger the evidence of a long history of antagonism, the more likely it is to be harassment. The stronger the target's track record for gaming the system and being the subject of sanctions, the more likely it is to be legitimate.
  7. A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
    • It is appropriate treatment for unwelcome/banned editors. Run of the mill problem editors, outside of vandals, tend to have some positive contributions. Unless they are so unwelcome as to be full banned, they should not be blindly reverted. Fully banned editors should have their edits all reverted, including "good" edits. See my response to #3 of Giggy's questions for related thoughts. Blanket unreverting in such circumstances is usually a bad idea. Each edit should be carefully examined and redone separately if indeed it is a "good" edit, but care should still be taken due to the concerns I express in response to Giggy.
  8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
    • a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
    • It is ridiculous to assume that all conservation about a project this large can be confined within it. As a general observation, demands for "in-house" critiques only are often a vehicle for controlling commentary and dissent.
    • b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
    • No, I do not. I just do not feel any pariticular need to establish such a forum for my view.
    • c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
    • Wikipedia Review is an outside site focused on discussing Wikipedia with a wide variety of participants, ranging from trolls to very well-reasoned posters. Wikback seemed similar, except with a more "insider" feel and more strictly controlled. I believe Wikback failed for same reasons I mention it as distinct from Wikipedia Review. I do not have an ideal outside criticism site for my own tastes, but as a general concept, one that isa fair and honest in its criticisms and constructively geared towards finding solutions to perceived problem would like be ideal.
    • d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
    • I do not see why it would not be acceptable to have such an account, unless it is specifically being used to game the system, organize an edit war, or something similarly devious. Whether or not it is in good taste is entirely distinct question, dependent on the particular site and usage.
    • e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
    • No, I do not.
    • See the answer to d), immediately above.
    • I do not think our outing rules are intended to provide an absolute shield of immunity. If it is solely being done to harass the editor and/or cause drama, it's obviously sanctionable as disruption and harassment. If the linked outside account has demonstrably canvassed, organized edit wars, or so forth, then it's not much differant than establishing sockpuppetry or providing evidence of off-wiki coordination/system gaming.
  9. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with meatball:VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
    • Yes, absolutely. There are obvious double standards enforced in a variety of ways.
    • Encourage and implement more even enforcement. This is not the same as a "one size fits all" approach, as context must be considered. Please see my answers to #1 and #2 of The Land Surveyor's questions for related thoughts.
  10. What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
    • Blue. It's a very pleasing and soothing color.

Partially answered[edit]

Unanswered[edit]

Individual questions

Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

Answered[edit]

Questions from Jossi

Hello Vassyana, and good luck with your candidacy. Questions:

  1. What are the three most important things you have learned about WP:DR in your different capacities at the MedCab and MedCom?
    • A large portions of disputes result from a miscommunication or similar breakdown. Most of these cases can be resolved by facilitating discussion, such as through clear questions, suggested directions and/or moderated sandbox drafts.
    • Some cases just cannot be resolved through normal dispute resolution channels. This is often the result of tendacious participants, article "owners" and similar behavioral issues.
    • Many cases fall in-between the two above poles, often making some good progress while still failing to resolve the fundamental conflict. This is often due to some parties refusing to write for the enemy, insisting on removing or emphasizing certain views, or otherwise flirting with soapboxing and similar issues. Sometimes, it is just due to an honest disagreement where editors on all "sides" have at least some tendency to both become irritated and irritate the situation. The latter tends to be a more resolvable situation with some effort.
  2. How will you apply that learning to your role as arbitrator?
    • I can distinguish fairly well between "content issues" and "conduct issues". I also understand that the presence of content in the discussion does not preclude conduct problems. Different avenues of dispute resolution are available for each type of issue. Each has distinct principles and rules. So, arbitrators should take great caution to avoid conflating issues of content and issues of conduct.

Question from Rspeer

Sorry about not getting this in the general questions.

In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is science a point of view, or is it a way of finding the neutral point of view? Does it differ based on the topic of the article? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Scientific consensus represents a portion of the available literature, or rather a segment of the body of available reliable sources. This proporation is integral to the NPOV, determining proper weight. Of course the proper weight differs according to the topic and its parent topics. I certainly expect that if I am reading the article about general relativity that the mainstream scientific consensus is the main view represented. It is quite simply the overwhemlingly majority view on such a topic. I would not expect such a predominance of scientific views and information on topics such as Cthulhu, fallen angel, theurgy and The Muffin Man. I would expect to see a predominance of the appropriate scholarly views on all academic topics. (For example) Origen, Phenomenology, World War II, Scizophrenia and SLAPP should all present the academic consensus and main academic views.

Question from harej

Assess this statement: "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee exists to promulgate the good times." To what extent is this statement valid, and to what extent should things change to reflect this statement? --harej 01:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Will Beback

This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?
  • No.
2. Is it appropriate for editors to create joke accounts, role accounts, "personality" accounts, etc., to have fun or to make a point? Should socks be allowed to edit policies, engage in RfCs and ArbCom cases, or seek positions of trust in the community? Or should undisclosed alternate accounts be used only with care in limited circumstances?
  • Community consensus and precedent seems to support the allowance, provided provided the joke account is not engaged in disruption nor use for disruptive socking. I don't see a problem with disclosed accounts be used to participate in general process, provided they are not used in a disruptive fashion. Undisclosed accounts would be significantly more problematic and would likely be deemed unacceptable by the community in many of these circumstances. For example, if a current administrator had a second undisclosed account running for administrator or bureaucrat, I believe the community would be strongly disapprove if it were discovered.
3. Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?
  • Our culture of permitting anonymous editing and assuming good faith can occasionally make it difficult to police the return of banned users under a new and undisclosed identity. However, this is not an inevitable consequence of the culture, but rather a result of how people interpret and respond to those principles. It is important to understand (and accept) that checkuser is not a magic bullet and can be spoofed. In the interest of not giving out ideas, I will refrain from detailing any specific methods. Please email me if you prefer to hear an example. Checkuser is all too often treated as absolute proof of innocence or guilt. We should generally take caution to assume good faith and avoid biting newcomers. However, the assumption of good faith only holds in the absence of contrary evidence. On a related note, I feel that the assumption of good faith is badly abused when it is used to excuse disruption. Some may act entirely in good faith, believing fully that they are doing the "right thing", but at the end of the day disruption is still disruption. If a user remains disruptive and unresponsive to feedback, the net effect to the project is the same, regardless of whether they have "good" or "ill" intentions. We can best solve the problem by avoiding the misuse of our processes and principles to excuse disruption; and by following the common best practice in dealing with disruptive and potential sock accounts.
  • Let me present a plausible example. A new user is promoting original research in the same tendacious manner as a banned user. They do not show the same quirks in discussion style and edit summary usage as the banned user. In such a case, it is likely that any checkuser request would be declined as a "fishing" request. We should assume they're new and take care to explain the problem to them. If they are not responsive to feedback, refuse to productively engage in dispute resolution and continue to disrupt the article(s), the new user should be subject to escalating blocks as per common practice. If the editor is using a single purpose account, common practice dictates that they should be subject to greater scrutiny and (after due diligence in attempting to resolve the issue) harsher blocks. If the editor showed a number of the same idiosyncrasies as the banned user, then the result should be an uncontroversial disruptive sock block.

Questions from Al tally

  1. Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly, without any issues. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.
    • I would have no problem with a community elections process for checkuser and oversight. On the contrary, I am a fan of devolving responsibility on the community.
  2. See this oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds just like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' [Arbitrators] 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' [Motions, voting to reject, accept etc. Basically, a community version of ArbCom]. Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator. Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone without going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).
    • I will be honest and say that I believe the contradiction you see is only one of superficial similarities. In my view, there is a vast practical and philosophical distinction. Abitrators elected by the community for the purpose in a process that attracts strong scrutiny and broad participation. As such, I find comparisons in this manner between a small group of self-organizing editors and ArbCom to be incorrect on a fundamental level. That stated, I fully believe that the community can overrule an ArbCom decision. However, any such overturning would require a clear consensus and significant participation. A few people disagreeing with the decision on an AN/I thread that dies in a day would hardly be sufficient, for example. Please see my answers to #22 of MBisanz's questions and #1 of Celanor's questions for related thoughts. I fail to see why the community would be unable to ban someone of its own accord. Akin to the caveat with the previous answer, this would require significant participation and clear consensus, but it is certainly within the community's ability.
  3. Former Arbitrators - should they lose CU/OS privs, and access to the Mailing list? After all, they resigned, so aren't interested in doing the work. Therefore, they have no need for such rights. If you resigned, would you surrender such privs?
    • I believe that CU/OS permissions and mailing list access should not be conflated. While they are both priveleges of ArbCom membership, they are distinct issues. There is no reason a former arbitrator could not continue to act as a CheckUser, for example. It is an open, well-known and long-standing tradition that those bits are given to arbitrators upon request (and appropriate self-identification to the Foundation). Thus, the community implicitly endorses (at least) the user having access to both bits by electing a member to the Arbitration Committee. However, I would not disagree with requiring retired ArbCom members to apply for CU and OS permissions through the normals means. I strongly believe that former arbitrators should forfeit access to the ArbCom mailing list. See my answers to #2 of FT2's questions and #29 of MBisanz's questions for further elaboration on this point.
  4. Recall - if the community have an issue with your use of CU/OS, or actions as an Arbitrator, what effective way can they address this? (Taking it to ArbCom is the wrong answer, by the way).
    • To be honest, there are not many options under the current system. The ombudsmen only address violations of the Foundation privacy policy, and only for checkusers, for example. Specifically in my case, my talk page and email box are both always open to constructive criticism and feedback. I will endeavor to be responsive to concerns raised and do my best to explain my actions. Of course, this method relies on an honor system. Addressing the concern on a general level, I would encourage any editor taking issue with actions by users in those positions to first attempt to address the concern directly and politely with the user in question. If there is a persistant problem with a continual rejection of feedback, a user RfC to formally present the community's concerns and allow the community as a whole a chance to comment would be a good step. Besides ArbCom, appeal to Jimbo Wales is always an option. Again, under the current system, there are not many avenues for recourse. It's not an answer many people will want to hear, but it is an honest one.

Good luck with the election! Al Tally talk 19:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Acalamari

Apologies if you have already answered similar questions above.

1. There appears to be a belief among some editors that if someone has contributed a lot to Wikipedia and/or are well-known/liked, they are exempt from certain policies, such as civility. What is your opinion on this?

2. In the past, some users have remained on perfect behavior as an non-admin, yet upon obtaining the tools, they become uncommunicative, uncivil when they actually do communicate, become negative or annoying, take a hard-line stance against other RfA candidates, etc. What is your opinion on this?

  • This is a rather broad question that could cover a very wide spectrum of behavior, so my response will be somewhat generalized. As a whole, such behavior is unacceptable. On the mild to moderate end of the spectrum, it is likely that the admin needs a little civil feedback, support and/or advice. It is not uncommon, nor suprising, for administrators dealing with trolls, harassment, difficult areas of the wiki, and similarly stressful situations to become a bit stressed out with worn nerves and a short tolerance. In the absence of these stressors, it is common for the real world to be causing some stress and frustration in such situations. We should generally assume some good faith and try to reach out to the admin to correct the issue. On the more severe end of the spectrum, strong feedback and possibly an RfC to clearly present community concerns are certainly warranted. If the behavior is "out of character" for the admin, it may be best to find a wikifriend of the administrator to both reach out and find the root of the problem. If it's not an isolated pattern and clear community input does not correct the problem, a desysop is probably in order. My response below provides some relevant comments.

3. In relation to question 2, under what circumstances would you agree that someone should be desysopped for reasons other than abuse of the tools?

  • A complete loss of community trust. I do not mean being somewhat unpopular because they've earned a few detractors or because they've intervened in controversial areas. The question should be whether or not the community as a general body has lost faith in the admin. Administrators are appointed because they theoretically have the trust of the community.
  • An inability or unwillingness to explain administrative actions and/or heed community feedback. While this is somewhat related to the first point, it is a distinct problem of its own.
  • Misuse of administrative status to bully, win content disputes, and so forth.
  • Gross mischaracterization of general character and intent, or similar lies, at RfA. If an RfA succeeds under fraudulent terms, the validity of the result is highly questionable. Significant and convincing evidence of deception would be required for a desysop.

Thanks for your time. Acalamari 17:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Pohta ce-am pohtit

Two questions related to the balance of power between ArbCom and admins. Pcap ping 16:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Do you think that the special civility restrictions enacted by ArbCom in several cases have been successful? If not, what would you do propose instead?
    • For the most part, they seem fairly ineffective. Depending on the case and its context, I would support anything from a final warning to targeted topic and interaction bans. (In the case of outright gross incivility, a site ban may be warranted). Some users just need a stern reminder (and the resulting administrative and peer pressure) of a strong warning. Formalizing warnings into civility probations seems to result in considerably more nitpicking and outright arguments than final warnings. Plenty of people just cannot keep their cool when it comes to certain individuals or topics, yet cannot seem to remove themselves from the situation. It's a good option to forcibly disentangle them from editors and areas that bring out the worst in them.
  2. Should a single admin A be allowed to undo an action of another admin B when the latter is claiming to act under the provisions of an ArbCom case (WP:AE)? If the answer is no, what should be done about admin A?
    • Generally, no because of the immense potential for drama. If there's disagreement over whether or not the sanction is correct, it can be raised for discussion. It may be appropriate in some cases, such as when the sanctioning administrator is actively involved in conflict with the sanctioned user, but the drama potential should still be mindfully considered. What should be done depends entirely on the context. How appropriate or inappropriate was both the initial action and its overturning? Is there a problematic pattern involving either administrator? Is this an isolated incident involved an administrator with an otherwise clueful and uncontroversial record? Did the sanctioned user cross the line and how far? These questions and similar queries must be given thoughtful consideration in order to say what actions are appropriate in the situation.

A third question, more directly involving you:

  1. Would you propose ElinorD for adminship today if she were not already an admin? Pcap ping 20:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, as there is a paucity of recent editing activity.

Questions from User:The Land Surveyor

These are questions I am putting to all candidates - apologies if they have already been asked you before.

  1. Vested contributor. I'm not sure I understand this term, but the way one defines it seems also to define one's position on Wikipedia itself. On one definition, it is a contributor who feels that because of their contributions, they stand above the ordinary rule of law on the wiki. On the other definition, it is a user who makes strong and positive and lasting contributions to the project, but whose behaviour can be pointed and forthright, leading him or her to come into conflict with the - same might say - narrow-minded and absurd conception of civility that seems to rule on the project these days. Which definition do you prefer?
    • The term comes from the Meatball Wiki, which defines it along the lines of the first.[4] The second definition arose as a counterargument to the first. I prefer the first definition. The second is an attempt to revise the term by some parties (and their allies) who have been labeled under that definition. It is a normal social process for targeted parties to adopt negative terms, attempting to recast them in a different light. That all said, I will touch on some related points. Blunt comments should not be conflated with insults and personal attacks. It is not uncivil to justifiably point out that someone is edit warring, as a mild example. An overly restrictive interpretation of civility would effectively neuter both dispute resolution and the enforcement of policy. The rules apply to all editors across the board. Positive contributions are not a free pass to violate the rules, though they may obviously affect the context of the situation. It is important to distinguish between context-appropriate action and uneven treatment. For example, an editor who trolls and causes drama, but has no substantive positive contributions to the project, is likely to be subject to lengthy (even indefinite) blocks. On the other hand, an editor who causes problems in a particular topic area or set of pages, but has many positive contributions, may be only prohibited from participating in the specific problematic area. The main goal is preventing harm and disruption. In the former case, it is probable the user will simply move to disrupt another area if given a topic ban. In the latter instance, there is reason to believe that the disruption is limited to an area. The distinction in treatment should be based on preventing disruption, not the granting of exemptions for positive contributions.
  2. Reasonable behaviour Some have suggested that the criterion for civility should reflect the legal concept of what is 'reasonable' rather than anything else. What is your take on this?
    • Using such a model would lead to even more uneven enforcement than we already see and rarely in any positive fashion. However, it would be perfectly rational to consider mitigating circumstances. Things cannot be considered out of context. For example, if someone loses their cool because they are dealing with harassment or an intractable editor, that's quite another matter from someone who regularly interacts with other editors in an uncivil manner.
  3. Content contributors A closely connected question: it is often argued by those who defend the 'narrow concept' of civility above, that there is no harm in blocking or banning an expert contributor because the gap will soon be filled - there is a practically infinite supply of potential contributors to Medieval semantics, say, who will make good the missing expertise of the existing contributors on that subject who have been banned. Do you agree with that argument?
    • No. It is ridiculous to assume that there is an infinite supply of specialist experts.
  4. Banned users still editing. This question has been put by other users, but I ask it again, if that is all right. It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly. But that suggests there has been some sort of consensus in the community to allow them back. Which suggests in turn that either there was a clear fault in the policy that caused them to be banned, or that the policy had not been correctly implemented. In either case, should not these cases, however divisive they may be to the community, be taken to Arbcom?
    • I cannot imagine that this is a common enough occurrence to indicate a fault in policy. I would recommend using the normal means of reviewing suspected sockpuppets of banned users. If the case proves difficult for the community to resolve, then ArbCom would become an appropriate venue. It may be a good idea to email ArbCom with a brief synopsis of your concerns and evidence to ask for advice before taking action, if the case is likely to be controversial and divisive.
  5. Criterion for RFAR A connected question: given the limited time available to Arbcom, what criteria should there be for taking a case to RFAR. All the available evidence suggests the committee is slow to react or reply to requests. Would clear criteria for a case being submitted be of use? If so, what should those be?
    • I like the simple guidande already provided on the RfAR page. The linked guide elaborates simply. I believe the guidance provided there is fairly much spot on. In all but an exceptional few cases, prior steps should be taken to resolve the dispute and evidence should be presented publicly. There are a plethora of options for editors engaged in disputes and they should be used in almost all cases before coming to ArbCom. At most, I would strengthen this point on the main RfAR page.

I wish you the very best with your candidacy, I hope it goes the way you would like, but also that it goes the way that is ultimately of benefit to the community and the project. The Land Surveyor (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ling.Nut

  • Regarding the redirect, it is problematic due to issues with communication. If someone is active on the project, their talk page should be open for other editors to contact them. Regarding the essay, I appreciate the sentiment though I find myself disagreeing at points. I believe there can be a variety of additional opinions, ethical considerations and other views without such thoughts being "hivethink". Also, the first point is a bit subjective to submit the second to its precepts. Where is the "harm" line drawn between the subject of a one-shot internet joke and an infamous mass murderer? One is obviously over the line and the other is well within bounds, in terms of appropriate coverage. Where the line is drawn would strongly affect my agreement with the primacy of harm prevention per your essay.

Additional questions from Pixelface

I am asking all candidates the following additional questions:

  1. How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
    • I would prefer to see the Committee remain of a manageable size. Considering the growth of the project and concerns about the number of active arbitrators, expanding ArbCom to 20 or 21 members would be reasonable.
  2. How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
    • I like the two-year option put forward by others. It seems like the most viable middle-ground between the various concerns about term length.
  3. What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
    • That is seriously problematic. Asking questions, seeking a bit of advice, and so forth are completely acceptable. Actively soapboxing for a side in an arbitration case is a very bad idea. The evidence and workshop pages, along with their associated talk pages, are the appropriate place to present one's case and suggestions.
  4. Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
    • I like the openness of the wiki and we encourage people to be bold. Some edits are undesirable, but people can easily resort to reverting and discussing the edit. Hopefully, people can hammer out an agreement and move forward. It's the nature of the wiki.
  5. Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
    • It should be no more or less appropriate than any other editor making such edits.
  6. Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Wikipedia:Arbitration policy?
    • I would like to see more community involvement in the policy.
  7. Do you think it is a requirement that subjects must be "notable" in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about them? If so, how does one determine if a subject is "notable"?
    • Yes. It comes down, for me, to a simple question: Are there enough reliable and independent sources to create a complete and substantial encyclopedia article that meets our content policies?
  8. Do you think the statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (which appears on the WMF's donation page) conflicts with the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Why or why not?
    • No, I do not. One is a idealistic statement that is not intended for its pragmatism, but rather its hopes. The other are part of the pragmatic principles and rules used to manage the project. Additionally, "knowledge" is not the same as "information", any more than a theory is the same as data. How do were not only determine what is knowledge, but what is valid knowledge? Having an absence of expert verification and a formal editorial process, we depend on reputable publishers and experts to make the determination on our behalf. We measure this determination based on the material produced by those reliable sources.
  9. Imagine a situation where an editor consistently nominates 50 articles from the same category for deletion every day with a nearly identical reason for deletion. Other editors object to this, and several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, but no user RFC is filed. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
    • This would most likely be considered a behavioral issue, due to the disruptiveness and drama of mass AfD nominations. I would reject the case, referring it to RfC to permit the community to voice its opinion. I would also encourage administrators to review the previous ANI threads and take any action necessary to limit disruption going forward.
  10. Considering the following scenario: An editor nominates all 17,000+ articles in Category:Asteroids for deletion at once and bundles them in a single AFD, with the reason for deletion "Asteroidcruft." The AFD is closed early by an admin, and the admin tells the editor not to bundle so many articles together in a single AFD. The next day, the editor nominates 200 asteroid articles for deletion using an automated tool, with the reason for deletion for each being "Asteroidcruft." A second editor, who is a member of WikiProject Astronomical objects, is checking their watchlist and sees many asteroid articles being nominated for deletion. The WikiProject member asks the first editor on the first editor's talk page to please stop nominating asteroid articles for deletion. The first editor tells the WikiProject member that he will not stop until every asteroid article is deleted from Wikipedia. The WikiProject member starts a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the situation, and later starts a thread at WT:ASTRO about the ANI thread. WikiProject members show up to the AFDs and argue to keep in all of them. At the ANI thread, several WikiProject members and several editors feel that the first editor is being disruptive. A second admin blocks the first editor for disruption, but asks for a review of the block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. At AN, several admins think the first editor is being disruptive, but several admins agree with what the first editor is doing, and several editors express their disdain for the WikiProject in general. A third admin unblocks the first editor, and the first editor continues to nominate 200 asteroid articles for deletion every day. Several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, some initiated by members of WikiProject Astronomical objects, some initiated by editors, but no user RFC is filed on the first editor. The first editor never comments at AN/I, but replies again and again on their user talk page that they feel that Wikipedia should not have any articles on individual asteroids. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
    • A bit of both, with a bit of community division tossed in. Whether or not an article is appropriate for Wikipedia is certainly a content decision. However, obviously a significant portion of the community feels that the method of expressing that view is disruptive. In the absence of a user RfC, I would probably reject the case. A clear attempt to express the community's concerns (as such) and attempt to reach some consensus within the community regarding the behavior is prerequisite to an ArbCom case. A RfC will clearly establish whether or not ArbCom needs to step in as the last resort, both in terms of the user's responsiveness and the community's ability to resolve the issue. I would also prefer to see the WikiProject members attempt mediation in some form, which could include seeking out an established member of the community who resides on the same side of the wikiphilosophical spectrum. (For example, finding a moderate and well-reasoned exclusionist or mergist to have a word with the editor about better ways to go about things.) Outside of a few limited circumstances, I would be strongly disinclined to accept a case without clear attempts to utilize other dispute resolution options.
  11. Wikipedia is a non-profit wiki and Wikia is a for-profit wiki and both were founded in part by Jimbo Wales. Do you think Wikipedia editors should be required to publicly disclose if they are employees/shareholders/editors of Wikia? Do you think Jimbo Wales has the power to make them do so? Do you think the arbitration committee has the power to make them do so?
    • I do not see why they should generally be forced to do so. We're not asking people to disclose their other online affiliations and I think that making an exception for Wikia is an uncomfortable level of distrust. It may be pertinent if they are editing or commenting in relation to Wikia, but that is no different than any other conflict of interest and should declare a COI following the normal standards. Jimbo probably has the power to do so, due to traditionally unique position he holds here, but the action would be deeply controversial. I do not believe the Arbitration Committee generally has the power to do so, as there is no policy or community practice in place that requires such disclosure, except in the very limited context of our conflict of interest guideline. Please note that a general disclosure of a COI is not the same as revealing one's personal identity and details. Vassyana (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions from Tony1

My good wishes for your candidature, Vassyana. I wonder whether you might respond to these questions.

  1. What is your attitude to the notion of introducing commercial advertising on WP?
    • Extremely uncomfortable. "Reasonable" advertising is all-too-often followed by excessive advertising, when introduced to a previously ad-free site. I also would be concerned about its impact on the Foundation's fundraising ability, as many people would be less inclined to donate money to a group supported by commercial advertising. If fiscal matters become so dire, I would be much more comfortable with seeing a corporate grant or sponsorship that has less impact on reader experience. While some people may be uncomfortable with the potential for bias towards the sponsor, it is not as though the Foundation or its agents could exploy oversight or other such tools in favor of the subject without attracting a great deal of controversy and risking much of its funding.
  2. Many users believe that the current "official" processes for ensuring that administrators adhere to the policy requirements of their behaviour—particularly the use of blocking—are inadequate. What is your attitude towards the reform of those processes so that they avoid the accusation that admins judge the behaviour of admins?
    • I believe a lot of the problem is poor utilization of dispute resolution options. For example, if an administrator has a pattern of bad blocks, RfC allows the broader community, admins and non-admins alike, to provide feedback on the situation. A lot of complaints about administrator actions lack any earnest attempt to talk to the administrator about the situation. Encouraging the use of these existing options is a good first step. It not only would solve more situations, but would also help us determine what reforms and alterations are most necessary.
  3. Some of the policy tenets embedded in the policy page WP:Administrators are cast in terms that may require ArbCom's interpretion during your term. Can you give us an idea of how you'd approach the interpretation of this potential exception from the critical policy that admins avoid conflict of interest in their role? The text in question is green and includes a commented-out section. The hypothetical case you face as a member of ArbCom would involve a claim that an admin who has not followed the putative "best practice" has breached the WP:UNINVOLVED policy by themselves blocking a user with whom they've had a negative interaction on the talk page of the same article several months before.

    However, one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them. That said, an administrator may still wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as "best practice" in some cases (although not required to). Or, they may wish to be absolutely sure that no concerns will "stick", in certain exceptional cases<!--, a decision best left to their own judgement (COMMENTED OUT BUT LEFT IN CASE OTHERS THINK IT'S HELPFUL-->.

    • It largely depends on the context of the case, especially in regards to the nature of the interaction. If the interaction was a brief disagreement about the article or ill-heeded warnings about behavioral issues, the block is very unlikely to breach policy or community norms. If the interaction was an extended argument about the article or administrative intervention that was highly unpopular with everyone involved, the block is very likely to be a policy violation. Other considerations include, but are not limited to, any other history between the editors, whether or not the article is part of a broader area of conflict and the administrator is heavily involved in that area; and any obvious drama potential to the block.

Tony (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Ncmvocalist

1. This question pertains to the current request to amend the Matthew Hoffman case decided in 2007. Assume you are part of the Committee, and just returned from a wikibreak. You are presented with that request and other statements/comments/replies that are currently viewable. (a) Do you consider this case to be distinct from other cases - if so, how? (b) Would you support a motion to vacate the case? (c) How would you have voted on each of the current motions and why? (d) Would you have made an alternate motion proposal - if so, what would it be? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(a) There are clearly a number of distinct features to the case. In order to keep my response at a reasonable size, I will only address the points that jumped out at me the most. One thing that that I immediately notice upon reviewing the case is the presence of a proposed decision and voting (including a desysop measure) less than twenty-four hours after the case was opened. The suspension for the run of an RfC is a distinctive feature. The desysoping of an administrator under circumstances where the admin appeared to accept the community's feedback in an RfC without being given a chance to demonstrate his earnestness is exceedingly unusual. This point is made all the more unusual by comparison to other cases. Taking just the time period surrounding the case, I note four desysops by the committee. Two were for disruptive sockpuppetry and both remain indefinitely blocked. Another was an emergency desysop for the deletion of the main page. The remaining case provides the best contrast to the Hoffman case. In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar, there was a conduct RfC two months prior, numerous attempts to address the issue with the administrator and a distinct lack of responsiveness to community concerns.
(b) Yes, but see below.
(c) I would not vote on any of the motions, because I would recuse. I feel that my friendship with the sanctioned administrator could result in an undue bias. I mainly communicate with him off-wiki, so there is no easily acquired evidence of my "conflict of interest". However, it would be dishonorable (and an insult to the community's trust) to not recuse of my own accord. I would limit myself to commenting the same as any other editor. In terms of an actual opinion, I think 1.3 is the probably the best possible outcome given the circumstances, though I would prefer the case simply be vacated.
(d) No.

2. The community have, on occasions, found it difficult to have poorly written or handled ArbCom decisions reversed, even today. What mechanisms (if any) would you propose to remedy this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to listen to community concerns about closed cases, but there also has to be some clear limit to prevent every case from being continually challenged. Generally, unless there is clear evidence that the case had fundamental flaws in handling, later evidence significantly impacts the case's findings, or something similarly serious, I would be disinclined to fully reverse or vacate a case. I would be more open to hearing requests to amend, provided strong proof that sanctions are no longer needed, later evidence negating a finding of fact, or so forth. As an alternative, the community also has the means to express opinions as a body through RfC, et al.

3. One of the major concerns with certain past and current arbitrators is their failure to handle ArbCom tasks in a prompt or timely manner. What steps will you take to help move things along? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to post questions and thoughts as quickly as possible to requests. I will do my best to engage my fellow arbitrators in discussion when a case or request seems to stall. I will prompt participants for contributions to the evidence and workshop pages after a reasonable period of time. I will comment on the evidence and workshop pages with requests to the participants for clarification, further evidence and general questions about the case. I will try to promptly and thoughtfully answer questions from case participants and members of the community, explicitly in my capacity as a individual. I will generally participate on the workshop and proposed decision pages.

4. (A) What is your stance on tendentious problem editing? (B) Why do you believe the community is, at times, passive in dealing with this issue? (C) If you are appointed as an ArbCom member, what steps (if any) will you take to help ensure this issue is actively dealt with by ArbCom? (D) What proposals would you make to deal with (or remedy) this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(A) It's a real problem. There are a number of editors that impede consensus, cause heated drama, and game the system that are rarely sanctioned strongly and in the worse cases are deeply disruptive yet require an immense amount of time and effort to sanction. It may sound simplistic, but we need to treat disruption like disruption and stop writing out excuses fo the offenders. Some of them simply need a bit of guidance and mentoring. We should afford them every fair opportunity to work productively, or at least without disruption. However, that does not mean endless indulgence.
(B) I believe that "assume good faith" is badly abused. People will continue to cry "good faith!", even though the assumption of good faith is explicitly not required in the face of evidence to the contrary. Additionally, acting is good faith does not preclude disruption. I'm sure that most people stumping are acting in the earnest belief they are correct and their actions are for the good of the project. Another part of it is that proving tendentious editing requires a fairly substantial amount of evidence. It takes considerable effort to both collect and analyze the evidence. Most people are much more willing to act in "bright line" areas like 3RR. Speaking of 3RR, it is an excellent example of another issue involved: A trend towards unreasonable leniency by the letter of the law, to which the first point is related. People constantly skate out of 3RR violations despite obvious editing warring because they "only" made three reverts. Tendentious editing is something not clearly and explicitly defined by policy, which has obvious consequences in the context of this trend. Taken together, we have a situation involving (relatively) complex evidence and criteria; misuse of policy for excuse-making, and a misguided trend towards by-the-book enforcement. A related issue is the conflation of behavioral and content issues. Just because something involves content does not mean it is automatically a "content question", as commonly defined on Wikipedia. These circumstances make it very difficult to deal with the problem.
(C) In general, treat disruption as disruption. Good faith disruption is still disruptive. Disruptive behavior that doesn't cross a line explicitly spelled out in policy is still disruptive. I would look to craft and support clear principles, statements of fact and sanctions that would explicitly deal with tendentious editing. Examples of problematic behaviors I see in this area that I would attempt to address include (but are not limited to) disregarding consensus, refusing to attempt to reach consensus or otherwise stonewalling the wiki process; continually smacking around dead equines on article and project talk pages; and consistantly misrepresenting or otherwise misusing sources.
(D) Bluntly state that tendentious editing is unacceptable in principles. Clearly and explicitly identify the problematic behaviors in findings of fact, also including additional principles as needed to address the specific behavior. Support sanctions such as topic bans, blocks and other measures to remove the editor from the area they are disrupting. Obviously, I would do this through contributing to the workshop and proposed decision pages of a case.

Unless to clarify anything above, I have no further questions for the candidate. Thank you for your time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from SebastianHelm

How would you describe your achievements as MedCab coordinator?

— Sebastian 07:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Slrubenstein

I am reflecting on my vote and would appreciate your answering these, which I have asked several other contenders.

  1. In a recent ArbCom case, a project page was created with an unprotected talk page. Later in the process, the talk was archived - in effect, the page was blanked - and the page protected, foreclosing any further discussion (see this discussion). Looking towards the future, what policy would you propose concerning the purpose of talk pages, the protection of talk pages so as to prevent talk, or the blanking of talk pages by ArbCom?
    • I wouldn't propose a new policy, as I have an aversion to extra rules. If we really do need a policy for these situations, the problem is far worse than a simple policy addition can fix. In general, talk pages are open and community discussion is welcomed across the board, both as a matter of principle and community tradition. Disruptive use of talk pages, including ArbCom talk pages, can be handled the same as any other disruption. Posting of confidential or private information on ArbCom talk pages can be easily handled as arbitrators have easy access to deletion and oversight tools among them, and can be further handled with blocks or other measures as needed. In the absence of disruption or confidentiality/privacy concerns, community discussion on ArbCom talk pages should be in no way prohibited or limited.
    • This is all very reasonable, although it doesn't address my concerns about what happened in the Thatcher/Slim Virgin case. My intention was to word the question to invite principled answers, but based on this I cannot tell whether you think ArbCom was right to end discussion on the talk page, wrong to have interfered, or should have taken another course of action. Can you clairify? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my perspective, it was a baby and bathwater situation. I can understand how some comments made may have been seen as problematic, insofar as the page was used as a venue to grind an axe or speculate overmuch about matters that cannot be discussed on-wiki. Many comments there were legitimate feedback about the case and proposed decision. It's been made quite clear that a very large chunk of the interested community expects ArbCom to act with greater transparency and responsiveness to the community. Treating Wikipedians like school children and punishing the whole class with "silent time" for the actions of some is deeply insulting and misguided, in my blunt opinion. The correct solution would have been to specifically target the problematic edits and editors, not to archive the talk page and protect it from any further comment. Ironically, considering the situation you raise, the solution for talk page problems is for ArbCom and its clerks to exercise greater ownership over the talk pages to intervene in a targeted fashion when the talk page is being used as a soapbox, for trolling, as yet another venue for the dispute at the heart of the case, for personal attacks, and so on. If I can further clarify my response, please do not hesitate to let me know.
This is very helpful, thank you! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Do you find the word "troll" useful in describing a certain kind of problem at Wikipedia? Is labeling a user a "troll" always a personal attack? If the term is useful, how, in your experience, does one recognize a troll? What is the appropriate response? Does ArbCom have a role?
    • I think a lot of people find it to be a useful definition for classifying a type of disruptive users. Personally, I think the result is indistinguishable for many other motivating reasons for disruption. No, it's not always a personal attack to label someone a "troll", but it's never really a great idea as it serves to provide recognition for the troll. We shouldn't feed trolls, but this principle is no different from how we should avoid enabling disruptive users of all stripes. In the end, a troll will find ways to game the system and continue to disrupt the project, despite warnings, attempts to educate the user, temporary sanctions and so forth. They should be treated like any other disruptive user that has shown themselves to be unresponsive to feedback and temporary sanctions. This includes indefinite blocks, community bans, ArbCom bans, and so on. I think treating them as a special class of disruptive user only serves to further validate a need for drama and recognition.
  2. Should WP:DE be made a policy? Why/why not?
    • Yes and no. No, because the current page needs a fair bit of cleanup and rewriting. Yes, because preventing disruption is a fundamental principle underlying our blocking policy and most behavioral rules.
    • Can you clarify with something of substance e.g. two things in the guidelines you reject, or a couple of essential points you think are missing? I would like to get a clearer idea of what you mean by "disruptive edition" insofar as you support a policy against it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! I hope at some point you might comment on the DE talk page suggesting some concrete changes! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Some people have claimed that a hierarchy, or hierarchies, of authority are developing at Wikipedia. Do you agree? If so, do you consider this a necessary feature of the community, or a problem for the community? More specifically, in what ways do you see members of ArbCom as leaders or as servants of the community?
    • Yes. It is obvious that there are "elder" members of the community, people in positions of authority and vested contributors. It is both a natural feature and a problem. Large groups of human beings will naturally trend towards certain behaviors and organization principles. We should be aware of this normal tendency. It is most problematic, in my opinion, where it exhibits itself as a trend towards centralized authority, exemptions for vested contributors and non-transparent "power cliques". It is least problematic, again in my opinion, where it exhibits itself as relying on the intitutional memory of long-term contributors, general regard for respected members of the community and a desire for clear policy. ArbCom should lead by example, but essentially serves and draws its power from the support of the community. For example, ArbCom should set clear examples of how to deal with disruptive users, but sanctions imposed by ArbCom are meaningless without the support of the community (and the accompanying willingness of the community to enforce those sanctions).
  2. ArbCom was originally formed to be the ultimate stage of resolving edit conflicts at articles. Since then, its mission has expanded. Do you believe it has expanded to reach the appropriate limit of its powers? If you believe that its mission has not expanded enough, or has expanded too much, please provide specifics and explain how you would deal with this.
    • The assumed scope of ArbCom has extended far too much. The commonly perceived shortcomings of ArbCom cases is not based in a lack of scope or authority, but rather in the manner cases have been resolved. A perfect example of the problematic overextension of ArbCom's scope is the BLP special enforcement. Another example is the proposed extension/revision of our effective user page policy. Both actions received highly negative responses from significant portions of the community. I would deal with this by supporting principles and measures that apply policy to specific circumstances and deferring policy and general enforcement to the community.

Slrubenstein | Talk 21:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partially answered[edit]

Follow-up questions from FT2

Thank you for your first answers, broadly on yourself and Arbcom.

These are some questions about your skill at Wikipedia dispute resolution:

  1. Flexibility:
    a) What experience do you have at a range of Wikipedia dispute resolution "styles", and in estimating how users may react to a given response? (This is a fairly essential skill in deciding whether to play hard or soft, direct or mediated, give another chance, discuss further, draw a line, or "try something new" in a case.)
    • I have very broad experience with the dispute resolution processes on Wikipedia. I have worked with MedCab, including serving as a coordinator for some time. I am a member of MedCom. I have provided a number of third opinions and have responded to RfCs. I have filed RfCs and posted noticeboard requests for outside voices. I have also provided advice and article reviews upon request on an informal basis. I have also blocked users, provided unblock reviews and participated in discussions about rules enforcement. These various activities have given me a broad perspective on dispute resolution, an awareness of many problem areas, and a working knowledge of how disputants react in various types of disputes.
    b) Please outline your track record at choosing remedies that are effective, but not overly-excessive, in a sample of difficult cases.
    (Note:- in a lot of cases, a remedy may potentially be "multi stage"; that is, take a step, see what effect it has, return to it if needed. This may include watching or warning first times, taking a tougher line later, or deciding it's an acceptable risk if they act up again, since action could be taken in future if needed. Although mild, it's a valid approach. I'd be fine if you use it, and what you do when it fails.
    c) Please show some cases you gave a seemingly difficult user a chance to reform (when others were skeptical), and where you drew a very hard but fair line on a problematic user.
    • For the former, here is an example at an RfC where the user in question signed agreement with my attempt at a balanced statment, including identifying some of his behavior as problematic and disruptive. For the latter, a current case up for review is a good example. Here is an example of where I draw a focused firm line of expectations to soften standing restrictions, where the (specifically targeted) restriction itself was proposed by me and extended to indefinite by another administrator upon review and further discussion.
    d) Please highlight a project space matter where there was much divisive opinion but where other administrators (on both "sides") listened to you, and you helped focus or resolve it.
    • To be answered.
  2. Conduct under pressure:
    a) Please point out a case you took a stand that was not universally popular, knowing you could face retaliation or rebuke.
    • I have warned, blocked, topic banned, and otherwise acted in relation to both ScienceApologist and Martinphi. This lead to some credible threats from parties unknown. The general conflict between skepticism and minority beliefs has been known to generate real harassment and similar issues for editors. Notably, both ScienceApologist and Martinphi remain on positive speaking terms with me, despite my administrative actions.
    b) Please point out a matter where you were badly attacked, accused, or heavily provoked, but remained in line with "best practice" conduct, yourself.
    • To be answered.
    c) Please point out a dispute where you faced people trying to redirect the matter to a side-issue (soapbox, hobby horse, etc) and your response was to avoid the "invitation" of distraction, and to keep the focus on the main target.
    • To be answered.
    d) Please point out a serious dispute which occupied your attention for between 2 weeks and several months, and which shows your sticking power and handling in the context of protracted disputes.
    • Here is an overview of my months-long participation at Prem Rawat (ArbCom evidence page). I stuck with a MedCom case involving members of the D&D WikiProject and another editor over the course of several months. I am still providing feedback and advice to people involved in the broader dispute, even though the mediation case is closed.

Like the previous questions, they are intended to be searching. Feedback will also be provided. Thank you. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from ImperfectlyInformed

Cool Hand Luke has distinguished himself by emphasizing transparency. What are your thoughts on this, and what do you think about citing diffs in your statements?

Also, I noticed your rant (can't remember the link, would appreciate you linking to it) on people who 'stonewall'. What do you think consensus represents, especially in the context of WP:NOTVOTE. Take, for example, the somewhat notorious AN thread calling for Pcarbonn to be banned. 1 diff was presented in that thread by those supporting: Jehochman cited Pcarbonn posting on his talkpage that he had "won the war" on cold fusion. Another 8 were presented in a different thread by ScienceApologist, 6 of which were talkpage edits, 2 of which were edits on the article page changing "majority" to "two-thirds". These edits were presented with false summaries by ScienceApologist, for example, the majority -> two-thirds edit was summarized as "Pcarbonn does not believe two-thirds is majority", and Pcarbonn mentioning NewEnergyTimes on the talk page was summarized as "Pcarbonn tries to cite NewEnergyTimes". Those who were too lazy to look at the diffs got a completely inaccurate view of what they were about. Given the paucity of evidence presented and the in some cases outright false ways that the diffs were characterized, do you think those supporting votes were valid? The votes fell around 15/7, percentage-wise 68/32.

Do you have any concerns about the potential for decisions made by the "mob" when devolving to the community? Particularly when a complex issue is being examined, can a group of editors who have not examined the issue except secondhand through, say, the introduction to an AN thread make a valid decision? Many of those commenting upon the above-referenced thread had never edited on the cold fusion page, and had not demonstrated that they even knew what kind of edits were happening. Potentially false statements were made without supporting diffs. Since then, some good evidence that Pcarbonn has not edited entirely neutrally have been compiled through the ArbCom process, and we can trust that people who have demonstrated at least some ability to examine before making judgments are looking closely at the issue. Isn't this the point of ArbCom? And would citing diffs upon which judgments are made further strengthen this process?

Sorry for the wandering, rhetorical way that some of these questions were phrased.II | (t - c) 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unanswered[edit]

Category