Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Sam Blacketer/Questions for the candidate

Questions from Heimstern

My questions are kind of nitty-gritty, but I'm not looking for really specific answers as much as trying to see your thought process and approaches to the issues.

1. What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate?

A: I see a lot of edit-warring in three revert rule reports and it is often connected with point of view issues. Edit-warring tends to fall into two categories. The first are editors who cannot bear to see an encyclopaedia article which does not tell the world that their cause is right and just and their point of view is correct. These editors prove unable to work with others, create a nasty atmosphere, and have to be blocked from editing. The second category are users with strong opinions but are more concerned that all the evidence is presented to let others come to the same conclusion. This group occasionally go too far but are normally sufficiently concerned to remain unblocked that they can work with others, so lesser sanctions tend to work. As my statement says I hope to draw out of arbitration parties which group they come into. With the second group, I often find that giving them work to do (like finding better sources) points them to work more constructively. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?

A: We should look for context. Editors who are blocked or criticised are not likely to be pleased about it, and often see it as a personal vendetta; we should not over-react in such circumstances. If incivility comes out of the blue, or if there is a sustained campaign to rile a particular user then action should be taken by the uninvolved. I notice that some uncivil editors have a group of friends who share their views but remain civil, and I would hope that, where an editor goes too far, one of their friends would step in to tell them so (possibly after a quiet word). Habitually uncivil communication needs escalating warnings and sanctions. Off-wiki harassment is something I consider to be particularly heinous and is bannable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

3. When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

A: What to look at is whether the administrator's actions are directed towards serving the encyclopaedia or to maintaining their own position. I want to encourage editors not to 'own' their administrative actions just as no-one owns the articles they write; with over 1300 administrators it is not realistic to say that "no-one else was around". I am particularly concerned that administrators should not take precipitate action where there is time for community discussion, because an indefinite block of an established editor which is imposed out of the blue and then reversed gives the view that administrators are arbitrary and out of control. I do see a role for temporary suspension of administrative abilities where an administrator is under the misapprehension that their admin actions are helping and/or within policy, and needs time away to reassess. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?

A: Where there is good reason for presuming that the evidence on which a community ban was founded has been misinterpreted, or when the policy areas which are involved are unclear or developing. Also when a community banned editor claims to have reformed and there is reason to believe they might be useful contributors. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

5. Two recent cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, were dismissed with no decision made after the Committee had been unable to come to a decision concerning wrongdoing or sanctions. In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Wikipedia. Now, consider a similar situation in which the Committee cannot agree on finding concerning user conduct or on appropriate sanctions, but in which the case issues are clearly current. What should be done in such a case?

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A: The arbitration committee should avoid trying to develop new policy in areas still under discussion by the community, but this should not stop it making findings in individual cases and then suggesting that the community agrees an appropriate general policy later. In both the cases mentioned the committee had a heavy workload and I suspect was partly driven by an urge to get the two cases out of the way and handle more pressing matters. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from east718

1: Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?

A: I have not actually seen any criticism of the Arbitration Committee for being too hasty. When things slowed down around September and there was a mailing list criticism of inactivity, I defended the committee from criticism on the grounds of workload. It is inevitable that more cases make it more likely that decisions would be delayed. This time did result in two cases which might have been progressed being dropped. To speed up cases without loss of care, a small group of arbitrators (two or three at most) could be delegated to concentrate on investigating the individual cases and report their findings back to the whole group. This would leave the whole group free to dissent from their findings or to firm them up, but would lift the burden from each individual arbitrator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

2: Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why? Thanks, east.718 at 00:55, November 23, 2007

A: I'm resisting the temptation to rewrite every arbitration case from the last few months to my own taste, because I believe a large part of the process is discussing matters between arbitrators, and being prepared to revise and rewrite proposals. However the question is a fair one. I think this finding from the Allegations of apartheid case is an example of a problematic attempt to "open windows into men's souls". I would have preferred to ask the users in question about the apparent contradiction to see if they could shed any light on it, and then report either that no explanation was given or what the explanation was and whether it was considered inadequate.

I think the Piotrus case could have done with being slightly more permissive of administrative action, rather than finishing with an exhortation. It may have been better with a wide delegation of powers to uninvolved administrators, as seen in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case which closed shortly afterwards, and a similar arrangement seems to be working in The Troubles case. (I would not have put Piotrus himself on restriction.) As I explain in my statement I would like to see more findings which set out what editors should do in controversial cases. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wanderer57

Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?

(Just to be clear. Some candidates wondered if my question was "aimed at them". I'm asking all candidates the same generic question; it is not aimed at anyone.)

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A: In the recent MfD I voted to end the current use of user conduct RFCs because I find that they exacerbate disputes and provide a ready forum for personal attacks all round. I have not found one that actually improved the behaviour of a criticised editor. I wonder if 'fairness' is the right context in which to look at the process, because RFCs lack any formal powers. Many RFCs have rebounded on the initiating party and been denounced as frivolous or vexatious. I hope a new procedure is created to allow community input which does not turn into the 'votes for banning' we saw on the Community Sanction Noticeboard, nor the free for all seen on user conduct RFCs. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus

1: Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?

A: Yes, in general I can't see any reason why they should not. Arbitrators should expect to educate themselves fully about cases in areas with which they are not familiar. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

2: If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?

A: 'Expected' is possibly too much like a command but I would regard it as good practice to discuss things on the workshop page before they are proposed for the decision. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

3: Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer?

A: In judging future behaviour, past behaviour is the best guide. Where a user has been here for years without a history of incivility, and suddenly makes a rude and uncalled-for comment, then they are acting out of character. If a new user becomes uncivil the first time they are involved in a dispute then it could be just bad luck that they have been riled, or a sign of habitual incivility. In the latter case more investigation is needed to work it out. I don't see this as a case of 'more equal' but making findings based on the best evidence. However, I don't see anything wrong with finding an established user's uncivil but out of character comment to be unacceptable and declaring that the community expects it not to be repeated. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

4: How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A: In my experience most incivility and personal attack occurs in the heat of the moment. It is suitable for a short "calm down" block from an uninvolved administrator which should be overturned if the blocked editor accepts they have gone too far. I do a fair amount of three revert rule enforcement and don't see the two issues as being very similar, because perceived incivility and personal attacks are often made in a sly way which allows the perpetrator to claim that they have been misinterpreted. I am also concerned that some editors try to game the No Personal Attacks policy, and deliberately take offence at inoffensive references in attempts to get those they are in dispute with blocked. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from I

1: What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committee? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? I (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A: I probably shouldn't do this, but I think I mentioned the main things in my candidate statement. Briefly I would like to see more testing of the approach of arbitration parties, particularly those who are being considered for sanction, and for tougher enforcement against harassment. I think arbitration findings would be more useful if they would tell editors in sticky situations what they should do and not just what they should not do. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from AniMate

Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? AniMate 12:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A: I tend to specialise in biographies of politicians, and have a list of targets on my userpage. Slightly outside my normal area, I'm at work now on John Straffen. Recently I have written John Gouriet, which I was pleased with because of the way a figure who was highly controversial in his own way could be explained in a neutral article with good sources. William Hopper (politician) turned out to have been a more rounded figure than I first thought. Alfred Balfour turned out to have been highly notable for doing nothing and despite the paucity of the source material, his article turned out well. Ivor Bulmer-Thomas was a man of many parts and I hope his article does justice to them all. Hubert Duggan was another who was, if not exactly obscure, certainly not a front rank figure in life; however his subsequent fictionalisation by two separate writers made him a fascinating subject of study. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A: This is one of those questions where it's tempting to go flying off into a long discourse about whether scientific theories are opinion or fact and then fail to answer the question. The answer has been with us all along: Neutral point of view means representing all significant opinions. For many scientific issues there is no other opinion which is truly significant, and when we occasionally see scientific cranks try to promote one then editors must gently tell them what our policies are and maintain the quality of the articles. Where a topic has a clear scientific consensus with a dissident minority then the minority must be respectfully accorded its place with the arguments well described. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718

ArbCom practice:

1. To what degree should ArbCom look at and treat administrators differently from non-administrators? Article writers from other-task WPians?

A: A whole series of arbitration findings have held that administrators are the 'public face of the community' and should endeavour to conduct themselves with particular care to be appropriate. Arbitration should look at the whole of the user's contributions; if it is clear that a user is generally good and helpful but has one subject where they are unable to work with others, then that suggests an obvious remedy. By contrast, an editor who stirs up trouble wherever they go needs a wider sanction. In general I would want to do everything to encourage editors to be as constructive and helpful as they can be.

2. Why do so many nationalist conflicts reach ArbCom? Why so often involving lots of editors? Does ArbCom need to look at these topics, articles, or editors differently in some way? Is there a link between content and behavior?

A: I've been dragged in to many of these nationalist conflicts, usually as part of three revert rule reports. I'm not surprised that so many reach the level of user misconduct that gets them put up to arbitration; people who come from a society where their interpretation of the world map is shared by everyone they have ever spoken to are coming to a space where there are people of every conceivable opinion, and often with imperfect understanding of the English language. It would be surprising if real-world conflicts which have been fought on the battlefield did not see heated language here. And once one side has pitched in, the other feels it must fight back.

Arbitration of these disputes needs particular care because it is very difficult to tell the difference between a good faith editor with a strong opinion, and a determined point of view pusher, especially when they have limited English. Simply handing out lengthy blocks runs the risk of losing people who are useful but just felt that they had to come to the defence of their country. The committee needs to look very closely at editing behaviour and get the editors individually to understand what they will do, and also to trust administrators to be able to handle the immediate enforcement by granting wider powers on affected articles. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Views/experience:

1. If you could by fiat change one WP rule, policy, guideline, or practice, what would you choose? Why?

A: I think we are sometimes too keen to extend blocks on users who, when blocked, have a moment of catharsis and go over the top in personal attacks. Users who are blocked are normally quite angry about it and are not in the best frame of mind and to some extent the best remedy is to let them shout in the dark until they have got it out of their system. I would also like to deprecate the overuse of templates on new users who have written articles with a clear conflict of interest or which are clearly not notable; I think it is often too impersonal and a message that is clearly from a human goes down better and is more likely to help them understand what was wrong.

2. Can you point to a dispute (could have been at ArbCom or Mediation, or even on a talk page) that you've gone into (as an involved party or 3rd party) with a strong opinion, but had that opinion change in the course of discussion?

A: I did reverse my view on Miskin's editing during the course of that case. Generally I tend to restrain myself from jumping to conclusions, and I hope try to balance the claims of both sides. However I do check ongoing behaviour and another example might be the ongoing Winter Soldier 2 case where, after initially treating Xenophrenic as a good faith user who had accidentally broken the three revert rule, further discussion with him disclosed a more determined attempt to press his point of view. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You:

1. I've seen it written that to be a good arbitrator, a WPian needs to first be a good editor. Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment? How do you consider your own editing?

A: I agree, with this explanation: the skills an successful arbitrator needs are different from the skills a successful editor needs, but a good arbitrator does also need an understanding of what is going on from an article editor's perspective. I think arbitrators should keep their hands in to the fundamental work of the encyclopaedia by continuing to make article space contributions. As for my editing I should really leave that to others to judge; there are some articles I have written of which I am very proud (see above), while others do not impress me very much.

2. Are you 18? 48? 78? Are you a student? Are you able to make a three year commitment to serve?

A: Not saying my age openly. I'm old enough to have played Space Invaders in a youth club when it first came out, but not old enough to have to work a Three-Day Week. I am in work but yes, I am ready to serve for three years.

3. Would the ArbCom be diminished if you were not elected? If yes, how? Thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A: It depends who else is appointed. There are some excellent candidates who I would very much hope to see appointed: David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, Ryan Postlethwaite and Shell Kinney, plus Raul654 deserves re-election. If I lost out to them then I would not be upset. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68

So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A: No. In fact, as pointed out in some of the evidence, I was among the first to question the block on the administrators' noticeboard. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754

1. What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).

A: I sense that these questions, posed in general terms, may in fact be more specific than at first they appear. In terms of any possible arbitration involving the correct titles of roads in the United States, I want to cite the "Ginsburg Precedent" and decline to answer, not least because I know precious little about the naming of British roads.

In general, it seems to me that the highways naming arbitration case brought in a limited and proportional editing restriction to deal with disruption on a particular set of articles, and was successful in preventing disruption. The probation requirements were lifted for all but one of those involved in a way which suggests that they had long become superfluous.

2. a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) own articles or c) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?

A: a) To gather together participants with a common interest, regardless of their opinions. b) No (fairly obviously, WP:OWN is practically universal). c) No, no user and no group has the power to enforce standards because editing disputes are always handled by the community at large. Our policies do not regard consistency particularly highly. However, if a WikiProject or an individual user comes up with a useful form of layout which makes articles more informative then I would hope other users recognise it.

3. Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on sibling WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)

A: As above I don't think a WikiProject can enforce or impose standards, but if a good format for articles is developed then other projects would do well to take heed. All editing disputes should be handled by negotiation.

4. a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?

A: a) Funnily enough, it's the same as the first line of Wikipedia:Canvassing. b) Canvassing can take place in those places.

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?

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A: This is really an WP:RFA question, not an arbitration one. Vandalism is disruptive and always blockable; good faith edits can also be disruptive. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I did make a mistake on question 3 - it should read as follows. 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)

Apologies. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A: I don't think my answer needs to change. Children usually grow up and do things which their parents don't approve. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ultraexactzz

Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.

Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.

Needless to say, it did not go well.

However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A: The ideal arbitrator needs to patiently examine disputes brought before them, and to take care to get an unbiased and careful understanding of the parties. So my single word would be "careful". Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Risker

There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing[1]. Amongst the reasons for this suggestion is to prevent parties from revising policy in a way that favours their point of view, to prevent edit wars on active policies, and to maintain a stable policy base so that users can rest assured that they are staying within policy. Do you believe that this is a good course of action for the encyclopedia? Please respond from your perspective as a prospective member of Arbcom who would be responsible for interpreting policy (but feel free to add your opinion as an editor as well). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A: I can see the reasons why this has been proposed. Can I reply with the caveat that I don't think it's appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to dictate policy to the community? Firstly, it is clear to me that an editor who appears to have breached policy, and then edits the policy to bring their edits into line with it, may not be behaving constructively. Some of our policy has evolved to a clear and overwhelming consensus and almost any change to it is destructive, and quite possibly trolling or vandalism, so there may be some advantage there in the move. However, there are also occasions when policy has shifted subtly and what is written on policy pages does not actually reflect what is done. There are also policy pages which are not worded as clearly as they might be and where any user who wants to copyedit to improve the wording without changing its meaning should be encouraged to help. Also, there is a vague feeling that we always lose something from "The encyclopaedia everyone can edit" whenever a page has to be protected - not to say that protection should never happen, but that it projects an unwelcoming face.

Therefore at the moment I wouldn't systematically protect policy pages; however it is something to consider very carefully. There may come a time when Wikipedia is even more eminent than now when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. That, at least, is my opinion; it may be counter to the consensus, and if so I would act in accordance with that consensus. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blue Tie

1. Can/Should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?

A: No, the purpose of arbitration is definitely not to create policy; the purpose of arbitration is to apply policy. Wikipedia policy is set by community consensus and that is just how it should be. When an issue comes up where policy is unclear or nonexistent, and the issue is serious enough to warrant arbitration, I think the arbitration policy should make a finding based just on that situation and not to try to lay down policy for the future. I think there may be some mileage in saying, where a finding appears to set a precedent, that it is no precedent, and that the community should feel free to come to its own determination of whether a policy was needed and if so, what that policy should be.

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member? --Blue Tie 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A: As above, no. However, should I be appointed, I would contribute to the development of policy as an individual editor with an insight into arbitration matters. If it turned out that consensus was different to the approach I favour, I would apply the policy the community preferred. Sam Blacketer 12:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from SilkTork

How would you vote on this proposed principle: "While anyone may edit Wikipedia without the need to register, that meta-editing activities such as voting in an ArbCom Election are best protected by registering than by sleuthing". SilkTork *SilkyTalk 17:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A: I would want to redraft the proposed principle to make it clearer, but I am in general agreement with it. I think editors should be encouraged to register accounts, and then ideally to stick to one account. The recent incident of 'sleuthing' has caused a great deal of distress to all concerned and while there is a need to check that banned editors have not returned in disguise, there is in general no reason why that cannot take place in the open and by asking the user whose identity with a banned user is suspected, to help explain the circumstances giving rise to suspicion. Sam Blacketer 15:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just adding another thought having read some of your explanations on other pages, if our system of registration of accounts was amended to include real identities, there would be very strict protection of who got that information. We wouldn't want this information to go missing. Sam Blacketer 16:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Irpen

The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private.

Mailing list

Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?

A: I see the presence of ex-arbitrators on the mailing list as serving two purposes: firstly, as a way of allowing the current arbitrators to seek extra expertise among those who know what they are doing and have experience in the field, and secondly as a discreet check on behalf of the community that what goes on in private among committee members is appropriate. As such I don't see any reason for making a systematic difference between elected and appointed arbitrators; some of those appointed plainly have community trust. Former arbitrators who are not helping the current members to write better judgments and not counselling against unhelpful discussions should not really be on the list. If the arbitrators wish to seek outside help in general, they can ask for it, and everyone has write access to the list; I can see circumstances in which an issue comes up for which the arbitrators need private clarification of something which has come up on the mailing list, and if this happened I would get committee agreement to contact someone off-list directly with the query. Sam Blacketer 09:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators

What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?

A: Private discussion of a party with the arbitrators is likely to be a good thing if it allows the arbitrators to better understand that party's editing behaviour, so I don't support a ban on parties contacting arbitrators privately. However, private communications are not generally the appropriate place for the party to make additional allegations against other parties in the case and I would tell any party who tried to do so that they must contribute to the evidence page of the case so that everyone can comment on it, and refuse to be swayed by what was claimed in private. The exception to that would be if one party wished to direct arbitrator's attention to the revalation of confidential information, e.g. real life identities, where disclosure generally would be wrong; in this case I would make sure the other party was aware of what was being alleged about them.

Recusals

Arbitrators who are parties of the case or have an involvement with the case parties that can reasonably be considered to affect their impartiality are expected to recuse. What involvement constitutes the ground for a recusal has traditionally been left to the arbitrators' own discretion, except for obvious cases when arbitrators themselves are case parties. While recused arbitrators, especially the case parties, are allowed to take an active part in cases, collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages, the same way as ordinary parties, they retain the opportunity to read the thoughts of other arbitrators at Arbcom-L and respond to those privately. It is technically difficult to exclude arbitrators from communication on a case they are involved. But would you support a prohibition for such arbitrators to discuss the case with other arbitrators through the private communication channels, except when submitting evidence whose nature warrants non-publicity?

A: Yes, I think if recused from a case, one should be recused from all aspects of it.

Community oversight over the arbitration policy

Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?

A: As I understand it, and I may be wrong, the Arbitration Policy has never been under the control of the community. I would encourage the community to make comments on the policy and I hope that extensive community debate takes place so that any changes made have the approval of arbitrators and the community. Sam Blacketer 09:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Haukur

I'm asking the following of the current top 10 frontrunners in the race.

ArbCom has the power to overrule any decision made by Jimbo in what he refers to as his "traditional capacity within Wikipedia".[2] Under what circumstances would you overturn a decision made by Jimbo? This isn't meant as a trick question - I would be perfectly happy with a simple answer like "I'd consider overruling a decision he made if I thought it was a bad one". But if you'd like to go into more depth or consider some past Jimbo decisions as examples then I'm fine with that too. Haukur 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A: Jimbo does not make many decisions relating to disruptive editors and editing disputes on the English wikipedia. It's a fair statement that any he does make are probably examined to a much greater degree than other administrator decisions. Some overturning may be reasonable: where a banned user "asks nicely" (to use the accepted phrase), and Jimbo unbans them, and then they return to causing disruption, then I think arbitrators should not hesitate to ban again even if it appears to say "Jimbo got hoodwinked". Jimbo is only human and he can over-react as can we all, and the desysop of Zscout is perhaps the most famous example.

In general, if a decision came up where Jimbo looked to have made a wrong decision, I think arbitrators should check that there was not something more fundamental involved; the editing of Giovanni di Stefano comes to mind, where I know there is much going on behind the scenes which could not be made public. Sam Blacketer 09:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Chick Bowen

In your statement you mention the proliferation of nationalist disputes coming before arbcom, saying that, "There are areas where policy is vague or non-existent, where editors try to push boundaries, and I would look to test whether this is 'trolling' or good faith belief. I am also concerned with precipitate action by administrators." Can you expand upon these comments? How can arbcom keep Wikipedia from being a battleground for real-world conflicts? Is current policy sufficient to allow them to do so, and if not, what kind of change is needed? Chick Bowen 03:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A: The issue of nationalist disputes is one area of ongoing dispute; the issue of policy being vague or non-existent is a different issue.

Taking first the nationalist disputes, I have already explained above why I think differences of opinion on 'nationalist' topics are far more likely to lead to the sort of entrenched dispute with bad editor behaviour which will inevitably end up before the Arbitration Committee. It's too optimistic to expect real world feuds and rivalries not to find their expression on Wikipedia, and experience in many areas shows that the trouble is likely to be more or less continuous. Realistically it is not possible to stop more such disputes breaking out, and it is difficult to see any way of doing so while holding to Wikipedia's core policies of neutrality and allowing all to contribute regardless of their point of view.

Perhaps the Gdansk/Danzig issue was the first which needed specific solutions outside the normal forums of individual editing. Since then these disputes have generally been handled through arbitration cases, but only after they have festered to the point when serious disruption has been caused. The arbitrators cannot be everywhere to check for editing disputes but I think we should be particularly sensitive when deciding whether to accept cases involving ethnic or nationalist issues even when editing behaviour has only barely crossed the line, where the issue is likely to fester if left. Nationalist conflicts need careful and close study to work out which editors are acting as cheerleaders for their side, and which are dragged in under the impression that it is their duty to answer their countryman's call. The former need sanctioning; the latter need a helping hand.

Handing of nationalist disputes does not need a change in policy, as arbitration is perfectly able to produce well-crafted and intelligent solutions which, if endorsed properly, prevent disruption and allow for the development of neutral and informative articles. The findings in the Armenia-Azerbaijan case, recently repeated in slightly modified form in the Macedonia case and in The Troubles (which I'm convinced is at heart the same), are good but can be developed in line with experience. However, merely exhorting editors to be reasonable, as in the Liancourt Rocks case, has not proved successful.

Moving now to the separate issue concerning areas with unclear or undefined policy, I would want to hold very fast to the approach whereby the Arbitration Committee refuses to create new policy but only interprets existing policy. The best approach seems to take the individual cases on their merits and make a finding which applies to that case only. The finding should then state that this makes no precedent, and that the community itself should develop a clear policy (which might not have been reflected in the committee finding). I think the committee should be as specific as possible in posing the issue to the community, perhaps in the form of a direct question with set options (the community could add its own option). Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional question from Irpen

I am asking this question to top ten candidates as of 02:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

Jimbo's decisions vs the community support

The final results of elections may or may not fully reflect the community support expressed by the vote tally but are subjected to Jimbo's approval, that is he makes the decision taking the community's opinion expressed during the election only "under advisement". Although it may seem a surprise to many, Jimbo is free to not follow the tallies and he may not necessarily appoint the top slice of the candidates according to their approval percentage. The historical precedents suggest that he may again appoint not strictly according to votes, that is skip the candidate with higher percentage of support in favor of the candidates with less approval rating but more to his liking (or if you want to be less cynical, the candidate on who community is making a "mistake that Jimbo would correct.")

If this happens again in this election and, hypothetically, you would be the candidate promoted over the head of another candidate who got the higher support, would you accept such promotion? Also, would you accept the election result in general if the candidates that are switched are both below your level of support that is such switch would not affect your own promotion? --Irpen 02:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A: It is part of the established system that the purpose of the election is, firstly, for potential appointees to the Arbitration Committee to volunteer their services; secondly, for the potential appointees to be questioned by the community; and finally, in the vote, to advise Jimbo on which of them has community support. Jimbo has an absolute discretion to appoint who he wants. I entered on that basis and by doing so I accepted the nature of the process; it follows from that that I absolutely waive any right to protest if I am passed over and a different candidate is appointed.

At the end of the vote I know Jimbo will take soundings among those whom he trusts which will inform his decision. There may be confidential issues which emerge during this process. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from wbfergus

What is your position on the following?

• A policy page has had a very active discussion for many months. All sides (loosely termed 'pro-change', 'anti-change' and 'issue-specific') of proposed changes have made their cases back and forth numerous times. The 'pro-change' group is mainly users, with a few Admins. The 'anti-change' group is mainly Admins (including those who helped write the policy over the years) and a few users. The 'issue-specific' group is a mixed collection of users and Admins, but mainly users. All three groups constitute around 40-50 people total, per announcements on the Village Pump and related policies, to garner more widespread community involvement either way.

1. After numerous discussions, and comments over a span of several days to several weeks on specific issues, what should constitute a consensus? 60%, 75%, 90%, or unanimous approval?
2. If around 75% agree to a change, is it appropriate for Admins (especially those who helped write the policy) to revert changes and protect the page from further edits against their approval?
3. Is it appropriate for 6 or 7 Admins to more or less block changes to a policy through protection and reverts, when very active discussions have been ongoing and the majority of those participating constructively (not just saying "No" or "Oppose" without constructive comments) agree to changes?
4. Would it be appropriate for such a policy page which does clearly have a disputed section to have a tag in that section stating that section is under dispute and to participate on the talk page?
5. Should policies solely dictate acceptable and unacceptable content, behaviour, etc., or should they also define Wikipedia-specific terms and definitions (without stating so) that conflict with usage in different disciplines, or should such terms and definitions be more appropriately suited in a guideline linked to and from the policy?
6. Do you agree that policies are meant for enforcement or 'enforceable actions', while guidelines are meant to give guidance?

For the record, I feel that I need to close my questions to all candidates, as one of the editors in the above 'subject' has filed an ArbCom request. As such, it could be interpreted as unseemly or whatever for these issues to be addressed in this forum. I was in the process of cancelling my questions and replying in an RfC and the related ArbCom request when I had to leave to take my wife to a Dr. appointment, so pardon the delay in cancelling this. wbfergus ^Talk 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Pinkville

Wikipedia is a community that produces and maintains a (still-nascent) encyclopaedia. This community has particular social and political structures that define it and that, presumably, affect the character, quality, and depth of its encyclopaedic output. Can you briefly summarise some political and social aspects of the Wikipedia community that you consider important or noteworthy, that perhaps need to be challenged or developed? How does the structure of Wikipedia encourage or inhibit access to decision-making and issues of power/control? Or does any of that matter? And what are the implications for the Arbitration Committee and its members? Pinkville (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)