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

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

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

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

General questions[edit]

Question from Ultraexactzz[edit]

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

If you had to describe the ideal role of an Arbitrator in one word, what would that word be?
...Problem solver. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Giggy[edit]

a/s/l?
41, male, Sydney, Australia
What is your opinion on the apparent divide in editors who focus primarily in mainspace, and those who focus primarily in project space? What would you do to help ease conflicts that come as a result of clashes between these editors? This is a deliberately open ended question.
I would like to see more editors performing a variety of tasks, more arbs and 'crats writing articles or finding sources if they feel unable to write, more AfD closers/voters writing and vice versa. I do feel this assists with empathy in confrontational situations such as AfD and in some arbcom disputes. These are not career jobs we are talking about, and anything that reduces schism is a good thing and hopefully encourages a collaborative environment. Spending time in mainspace helps get an idea on how best the 'pedia develops too, which is the ultimate aim after all.
What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
Tricky, in the case of an editor that was banned for actively malignant or sociopathic behaviour such as stalking, I would be inclined to agree on the eradication of presence. I am not so sure if the ban were for difficulties rather than outright danger (real or perceived) to others. The way to go would be review by (hopefully) a wikiproject or senior editors in good standing, the material then used, altered, improved or discarded in the greater enlargement of the 'pedia as a whole, so as to minimise the impact or 'marking of territory' by a banned editor.
Pick one arbitration case opened in the last year that contains a final decision with which you disagree. How do you think the case should have been handled, what different proposals would you have made, etc.? Again, somewhat open ended.
Erm...am looking for bits and pieces. In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#Cla68, I would have liked a stronger statement along the lines that leaving a half-prepared RfC or anything critical of another editor in userspace is not on. We all have harddrives, thumbsticks or other places we can keep that sort of info in the meantime. Similar to workplace, either make a complaint and run with it, or keep it to oneself. Leaving it dangling like a Sword of Damocles is gratuitously souring the mood of the place. That is one which comes to mind anyway.
Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
I have been instrumental in over 20 FAs and a few FARs, the most useful of which I guess would be rescuing schizophrenia so far. lion and vampire were pretty good too. Outside this, I feel my efforts in promoting collaborative editing within wikiproject birds and wikiproject dinosaurs in the production of large numbers of Featured Articles over the past couple of years are my best controbutions, trying to bring out the best in other editors and get them to realise their potential.
Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
~~Yes~~ ~~possibly, I must admit I do have some reservations. I definitely won't make any~~ ~~oppose votes as I worry that the concept of oppose voting promotes negative interactions and carries very little benefit~~ I thought about it; I can't. I think it is about 99.9% likely that there will be those elected who I didn't vote for, and I'd rather not start off with "hi, I didn't vote for you...let's work together..."

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

Questions from Sarcasticidealist[edit]

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

To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?
In general they are the foundations on which the whole shebang runs smoothly, and as such are relatively prescriptive. However, as the 'pedia grows and evolves, there may be situations where policy needs fine tuning or a good reworking if it becomes apparent that applying policies is somehow impacting adversely on function, in which case they can be examined and changed if necessary
What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
Tricky; not having seen the workings of the mailing list, I can't comment on their role or participation, however I veer towards the idea of current arbs only. Former arbs can always be approached off-list and asked for advice without being privy to the mailing list.
At least one candidate has committed to being "open to recall" in much the same way as administrators in Category:Administrators open to recall. What is your view of the wisdom of this, and do you see yourself making a comparable commitment?
From what I have seen, the AOR process is arbitrary and inequitable, and redundant to current workings of community process. Thus the comparison is not a good one. I can't imagine continuing in the role if there were significant opposition or criticism of my place on arbcom. Life's too short.

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

Questions from Celarnor[edit]

What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (.e,g, types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?

Ultimately, the smooth running of wikipedia is the aim. In this case, I do like FT2's wording of "last resort" to add some flexibility to arbcom's function. There have been cases where simple issues have become quite complex, such as Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2 and highlighted issues on notability which are far from resolved. Thus there may be cases where information comes to light of conduct or issues which are intimately involved and require action, and a little extra effort or examination of issues can result in a solution which is a net positive. If this were the case, it would be good for the committee to be able to act.

What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?

Setting an example of scrupulous behaviour and conduct is pretty much a given, also avoiding any impression of conflict of interest. Also being proactive in problem solving and mediation in potential or recent problem areas (and hopefully avoiding recourse to sanctions, arb enforcement etc).

Question from LessHeard vanU[edit]

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

Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My original idea was the reworking of Admins Open to Recall, so that it was (a) compulsory for all admins, but that (b) any successful request for recall had to be vetted by some form of quorum or subcommittee of bureaucrats. My feeling now is that the AOR process is pretty much redundant and that some form of subcommittee drawn from arbcom and/or bureaucrats would be the best way forward with this, rather than a full-fledged arbcom case. One proviso would be that the subcommittee would be used for those cases where the issue was a simple or clear cut abuse of tools. Were the issue more complex, then the standard arbcom procedure would apply. So in answer to your question, yes, but by a subcommittee (to replace AOR).

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

Question from Carnildo[edit]

How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
As much as is needed. Hopefully I will have enough time to still keep collaborating with other editors at WP:FAC and various wikiprojects. I believe having arbs mucking in and editing in various areas, available and engaging in banter and article improvement is healthy for the 'pedia. The alternative, where the workload is such that arbs do little else, and interactions with the community at large is limited to arbitration cases, I do not feel is healthy for the environment of the 'pedia as a whole.

Question from WilyD[edit]

During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally). While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:

Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over a regular editing issue? Are there any special considerations? If it is not appropriate, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
Yes, if for actions which would be blockable in the case of non-admin editors (eg 3RR, NPA etc.)
Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when? If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
The aim in these situations is not to escalate conflict and ill-feeling. Pausing and asking others on AN or AN/I will help; if it is a clear misuse of tools, a consensus will develop that it is so and so there will be consensus for appropriate action. if not, then the extra time and views will be valuable in figuring out why you formed the opnion something was amiss when maybe there were other issues afoot. And of course there is always asking the admin involved....

Questions from PhilKnight[edit]

In what situations would you recuse yourself? Obviously, I'm not asking for a generic answer, but instead I'm genuinely interested in what subject areas, or conflicts involving which users, you would recuse yourself. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious one is where I was a friend of one of the involved parties I guess. Other than that, there are many areas I edit in around the 'pedia. If concern was raised by parties that I may not be impartial, and the committee agreed this may be a problem, I'd consider recusing.

Imagine there is a case involving an editor who had been pushing a scientific racist viewpoint, and then another editor describes them as racist. Then an uninvolved admin blocks the second editor for a personal attack. How should this be handled?

Clarify the situation with blocking admin, and (hopefully) gain consensus to unblock, and suggest to 2nd editor to be wary and stick to discussing content not editors, then investigate first editor's behaviour closely.

Questions from Thatcher[edit]

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

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

Tricky, abhorrent vandalism such as personal attacks, gross or explicit material may warrant a more thorough/rigorous investigation to exclude or implicate the admin. Similarly, any link in subject material or behaviour really needs a "please explain". Generally, if someone is capable of that level of deceit, then it may be an ongoing problem.

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

(a) Run the check himself. After all, he is the most familiar with the banned user's editing patterns, and if the account turns out to be an unrelated editor, there is no privacy violation as long as the checkuser does not discuss the findings with anyone.

(b) Ask an uninvolved checkuser to evaluate the need for a check, and then run the check if needed. Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is worth the delay and inconvenience.

(c) Write your own answer.

(b), no need to act instantly, there are plenty of checkusers around and the world isn't going to end for a few hours' delay. Propriety among checkusers, as with 'crats and arbs, is important for the community's trust, especially as many are concerned over scrutiny of their IP accounts etc. Privacy is important and needs to be respected

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

The blog is clear evidence of failure to accept responsibility and understand the issues at foot. Reblock/ban.

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

In an ideal world, these issues could be discussed openly and the community would appreciate the committee's candour in sharing their issues with a case. In practice, the committee often cops flack for seeming indecisive. Thus, sorting it out one way or the other is good before publishing. The committee needs to act as a unified body.

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

Ideally, should I declare to take a back seat for some period, I would keep my finger on the pulse and offer an opinion if I felt strongly. If I "missed the boat" for some reason, I may raise an issue privately with other arbs. If there was not a consensus to act, I'd leave it. if others felt this was really important, i guess the case could be reopened. Either way, I'd leave it to consensus.

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

I edit under my real name, but keep certain aspects of my locale, personal information, and work private. I guess if I felt I were under serious harassment or attack online I may have to resign. Depends on the situation.

Questions from Newyorkbrad[edit]

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

(A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;

(B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;

(C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on WP:RfAR) and for clarification or modification of prior decisions;

(D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users on the arbitrators' mailing list;

(E) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;

(F) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;

(G) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain).

I have not been much involved so suspect won't be too good at A to start with. I suspect B would be where I would be most useful, given my background.

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

The NYB revision has more of an algorithm/flow chart feel which is a positive step. The change in quorum for acceptance is good too. I agree with the shift in emphasis from dispute to conduct, as one suspects conduct must be a problem if all other avenues have failed. However, both factors were secondary to larger problems of notability in the TV episode wars as well, which was critical in understanding the widely disparate views held on editors (most clearly TTN) involved with the case. In which case FT2's more inclusive and in some ways more apt wording of "last resort" holds alot of merit.

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

One benefit is giving more arbcom members the opportunity to write or otherwise be involved with other areas of wikipedia - this is important in engaging with the editor community-at-large. However, I do not know why this reduction has occurred otherwise and hopefully is the result of a positive reason (such as removal of most difficult editors, or successful introduction of mechanisms to reduce escalation of conflict) rather than negative ones (such as apathy or alienation)

Questions from Mailer Diablo[edit]

1. Say you are given the power to implement or abolish one policy on Wikipedia by fiat, with immediate effect, no questions asked. What would that be?

2. Hence or otherwise (of Q1), should ArbCom be in the business of creating new policy, amend an existing policy, or abolish any policy as a result of any outcome of a case? If so, should the community be consulted on such matters beforehand?

I can't think of a situation where it would be prudent for arbcom to unilaterally create, change or implement policy, though I could see situations where it could flag policy issues as flawed or impacting on the development of the 'pedia and request the community as a whole prioritise discussing an issue.

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?^(AC/IRC)

Although it is off-wiki, its name and brief indicate that its substance is clearly WP related. Unacceptable behaviour there cannot in essence be ignored, and ignoring it makes authorities on wikipedia look lame. In this respect it can be treated like communication elsewhere off-wiki really. Civility may not be quite so applicable, but personal attacks, stalking and legal threats certainly are.

4. "Change We Need" and "The same old Washington that's broken" is a favourite mantra for candidates running for office, and that includes this election. Would you, and how would you reform ArbCom? And how can editors be sure that you will stay true to your promise?

I can't change it myself, but I do like the idea of more arbs, leading to less workload and mroe arbs working in other areas of the 'pedia and increasing their interactions and familiarity with a wider range of editors, rather than spending hours on contentious cases. Arbs need to be integrated into the community, not sequestered and fully occupied with cases.

Questions from Rschen7754[edit]

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

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

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
Erm...a long time.
a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
Wikiprojects for me have been a nexus whereby editors with like interests can come together and focus on developing and improving a large number of articles, by sharing expertise and ideas, and reviewing and imporving each others articles. My experience of them has been uniformly positive. As the 'pedia grows and develops a more polished and reputable appearance, I believe that uniformity is a great plus in developing reams of articles. We have taxoboxes and have developed standards on the presentation and classification of material right across the 'pedia. For many of these there was significant debate before the development of protocols. In short, I do believe that they do have the right to dictate standards (although there may be exceptions which discussion can elucidate), but that consensus may change and the correct way of challenging a standard is for wider discussion of the particualr policy in question, as consensus may change.
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)
Depends on the issue at foot; in certain cases yes, especially if it is a widely accepted policy.
Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
(a) no - as long as worded neutrally (b) yes.
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?
No, no and no. Consensus and discussion, then an RfC.
An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
discuss, and clarify, then RfC, At some point may be classified as Tendentious or Disruptive. In extreme cases, it may become apparent that an editor is incapable of acting in a collaborative manner and their presence is a net negative on the pedia, and they may require action of a permanent nature.
An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
capacity is a better word than intelligence. Education and guidance, and correction of edits. People will either improve or they won't.
a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
That at the end of the day, despite all measures or interventions, an editor is unable to interact collaboratively with other editors and is a disruptive (and net negative) influence on the 'pedia. WRT (b) it really depends how an editor responds to intervention and help (I do prefer to work with carrots rather than sticks), but in extreme cases, if the end result is (a) then so be it.
(This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

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

Questions from Maxim[edit]

What is your stance on wheel-warring? What do you define as wheel-warring? As an arbitrator, how would you respond to a case surrounding a wheel war?
The policy is pretty clear. It has big bold letters on the Wikipedia:Wheel war page. So I guess that's a 0RR really, and my feelings would be consistent with what is on the page.
What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall is blatantly unfair. My idea was to either make it compulsory, but all successful recalls had to be vetted by a (to be decided) quorum number of bureaucrats (3 would be a workable number). An alternative would be to have arbcom be the vetting body as well. I do like the idea of some devolution, and bureaucrats are another group of editors held in high regard who are a natural pool for important decisions such as these (and they are involved with the promotion of sysops so is a natural extension of their brief).
What is your opinion on adminbots? The bot policy was updated to allow adminbots to bypass RfA, going only through BRfA, and fully-automated unapproved adminbots were required to be approved via BRfA. What is your opinion on handling unapproved adminbots? What is your general opinion on high-speed admin tools, which are not fully automated (like Twinkle)?
I concede have had very little to do in this area thus far and would have to read up on that.

Questions from rootology[edit]

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

Questions:

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

Oh god I zoned out the first time! let me read it again

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

Looking back, I wonder if this section would have existed at all if the original wording of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Cla68 2(A) had focussed on the value of the contributions rather than the editor. The intent of (A) was to highlight the value of Cla68 contribs, which is a no-brainer, while other aspects of conduct are compartmentalised in the following subsections. The wording of it was a bit too generalised which then led to the problems of those clearly unhappy with other areas of conduct to abstain rather than support the content contribs. Ah well, you live and learn. Good learning tool to ensure the question is exactly worded right. Now, if it were reworded as above, just ackowledging the value of the mainspace contribs of Cla68 and there had been an abstention 'then' I would be alot more worried about impartiality.

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

Erm, I think I will get a better feel for that over time. I get a sense there is some mismatch of ideas about directions. I think input from the community is good, but could be chaotic as well. Question is, how to best strike a middle ground...

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

I dislike the oppose voting, I need to check whether any appointments have differed from vote/consensus in the past. have they?

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

I think you need to give it to the top candidates however the voting is agreed on in the first place. More complicated when there are procedural oppose votes by people to ensure their support votes are worth double. I find this a really negative practice; in some ways, I don't blame folks who vote like that, but its the system which has set it up. So, short answer to absolute majority, no

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

That there is enough time for arbs to do lots of stuff outside arbcom. If not, we get more arbs, or devolve jobs

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

a) The Community

b) Jimbo Wales

c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee

d) The Wikimedia Foundation

Feel free to explain your ordering choices and your rationale behind them, if so inclined.

(a), then others...all...sort of...you know...there (waves hands in air like Bernard Black)

'Thank you, and again--good luck. rootology (C)(T) 00:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Davewild[edit]

Do you support reducing the length of Arbitrators terms to under 3 years, and if you do and are elected, how will you go about trying to get this implemented?
I do think, that if the workload is such that arbs can carry on with other enwiki activities and arb cases and not feel too overloaded then three years is not a problem, but I will see how others want to work this. These elections are fairly time-consuming endeavours...

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

Questions from roux[edit]

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

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

I have not delved into the civility debate thus far, but I do feel there is an element of context not covered or discussed. If it has been somewhere, feel free to correct me and point me in the right direction. The problem is wide-ranging and includes things like snide comments at another editor who is either riled up, exhausted or known to have a short fuse. Issues such as posting on a person's talk page I feel need to be taken into account. There is something inherently confronting about posting on a talkpage of an editor if the intention or tone is negative, thus consequences for when the recipient becomes upset or angry (and incivil) may need to be amended. I do not expect established editors as such to be subject to greater leniency, but I do feel that provocation or effort/emotion invested in the area of conflict may need to be taken into account. e.g editor A makes 400 edits to an article, editor B passes by and a heated dispute results. A may need to take a rest but at the same time some of their anger may be explainable. I suspect much slides at the moment because of the widespread uncertainty. Maybe it needs to be tightened and tied up with guidelines on trolling too. Anyway, as far as the proposals - A1 is vaguely worded and subjective (the term 'low-level' is misleading anyway. plenty of polite language may be malignant, plenty of swearing may be just explosive rather than too nasty, and all of it may be subjective. Thus the lack of parameters make the term too ill-defined), A2 sort of yes (incivility is a problem period), disagree with A3 on general contribs, but see above.

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

Oppose B1 - I'd do mentoring before restriction, and if the mentor(s) felt the editor was unrepentant and continuing to cause problems, a ban I think. Weak oppose to B2, not sure they don't work in all cases. B3 neutral/weak support, no need to chuck it out right now until looked at

2) a) If you oppose all proposed restrictions, but view low-level civility as a concern: what restrictions, if any, would you propose as alternatives to those outlined in section B?

mentoring by two to three editors (maybe 'crats), and banning if problems persist and peson unrepentant.

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

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)[edit]

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

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

I would have to be convinced that (a) I was sure that wikipedia would be better off with me in arbcom rather than him/her, and (b) there was also widespread consensus among the community that this were the case. Thus I would attempt to ascertain (b) in a public forum before accepting the position.

Questions from Lar[edit]

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

Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.

b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.

These issues become complex in a complex model - too strict and one can end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater; too lenient and we get problematic material. Maybe it is about process rather than policy. On paper all the guidelines are there to allow for the removal of material (i.e. material likely to be challenged must be referenced with a reliable source etc.).

No to (a), one is either notable or not. This could be a dangerous precedent. I guess I worry that if outside influences can modify marginal cases I wonder where it will lead? Who knows, I could imagine government figures suggesting we drop marginally notable people or cases, or big companies etc. I can imagine WP being vulnerable to this already without loosening the guidelines further. There was a time last year when accounts from both state and federal governments in Australia were involved in heavily editing their respective political articles. It is not a big leap to imagine sleeper accounts who could become admins and seek to influence pages for money or political gain; thus the rules need to be fairly inflexible to minimise gross changes. How can an encyclopedia have credibility if applicants can direct how or if their pages are written?

(b) has merit, especially if there is controversial material. In fact, this last should be a prerequisite for removal in borderline cases.
Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?

b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?

c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.

Q1 (a) is about policy, as is (b).

~~I haven't examined BLP cases at arbcom as yet~~. Seemed to do what they could. Again, there is a problem with location of material; Wikipedia:General sanctions I have never seen before today, ok I might have been lazy but it does strike me that it may need to be in a more central location. Similarly Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log somehow should be combined with Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard (even though there is an obscure link between them). Problem is, there are too many places to scout around and keep track of things. Again, it is about delivery and profile. We have mechanisms in place, but the trick is in the incorporation and use by editors at large. I think alot of it is that many editors are young, and things like slander (a bit like ill-health and death) are really not on their radar.

Aha, this is the cunning plan. Need to promote BLP reporting - really need to promote usage and patrolling of this board - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and discussion therein. As referencing improves and standards change, this may get better (eg unreferenced material often gets asessed and removed pretty quickly from FAs and sometimes GAs now, and even DYKs, so the sands are a-shifting. A note in the signpost may help as it is important. This would be my first step as the rules and gudelines are all there, just the implementation is not quite. I was musing on this overnight and I think a triage system to rank urgeny of BLP issues would be good, as a swarm of 8000 unreferenced articles I think just scares people. Has this been done before? I don't know. Also a welcome template written in a nice friendly manner illustrating why this is an area which needs referencing "Supposing this were an article about you/your sister etc." which could be posted on folks adding material to BLPs.
It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?
Big question. Answer. not yet. I think things are still ticking along ok in most areas (FAC, RfA, AfD) Some areas are problematic such as civility and notability. I was thinking of a reworking of civility along the lines of "edits which gratuitously deteriorate the tone of the current dialogue" and folding in trolling, baiting, polite niggling and malign comments. I often think that the idea it is not a vote is a delusion, who are we kidding? This is how RfA and some policy changes have been decided. Some changes which clearly impact adversely on the growth of the 'pedia after popular consensus may have to be reversed by some other method.
Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?
I do my own version - called FAs/GAs and being progressively more liberal with semi-protection. Flagged revisions may help more but so may the abuse filter, which will be interesting to see. If anywhere, BLPs may be a great subsection of the 'pedia to have a trial run. Featured Articles is another, but these are pretty heavily watched and vetted. Vetting of unreferenced material is much more common these days too, particularly in FAs and FAC candidates.
Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

I have always edited under my real name, however, many have had experiences or fears which lead them not to (especially women). In an ideal world we all could use our real names without reprisal, but it isn't ideal and I have heard of some unpleasant instances of stalking and harassment. Unfortunately we do not have a parallel-world matched wikipedia which insists on real-name editing with otherwise identical parameters to compare which would produce an encyclopedia more easily. I guess my default point would be that I prefer editing to be done under real-names but can understand why many choose not to use them; in the end it is the articles that are important not the people. I would hope that this was used as a guideline somewhere on username discussion.

b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?

c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?

As far as reverting release of private information, all options (deletion and/or oversight) should be open to any users who wish to erase their personal data on wikipedia. It isn't earth-shatteringly hard to become an admin (as the archtransit case showed), which then renders deleted (but not oversighted) data easily visible and findable. Editors who contribute their time to improving the project are valuable, and if a few clicks of oversight are needed to keep contributors, then it is a miniscule price to pay, if any, to keep folks in a comfortable environment they feel safer in.

d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?

e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)

Yes, this is much easier if I am male. I have not come to a decision on open identity to everyone, but disclosure to other arbs and WMF is good.

f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?

WMF are unable to guarantee anonymity pure and simple. The best they can do is promise to keep anonymity for those who request it as far as possible. A link on the 'welcome' template, or somewhere on a username discussion is the best bet, giving people advice about preserving anonymity if they so wish.

g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)

Outing is outing, no matter where it occurs. Simple malicious outing is serious and can be construed as a personal attack. A mitigating factor may be where an editor purports to be somethnig they are not and uses their misrepresentation to win or further arguments, akin to issues in the Essjay scandal. Though this is somewhat mitigating, the correct course here would be notifying arbcom. Need to read up on a few cases of outing and see what happened before I discuss outcomes.
Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?

WMF should, there are alot of young vulnerable editors, and documented cases of a serious nature. It has happened and will again. Again, this should be tied into a discussion on anonymity on the welcome template.

b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.

Responsilibity by warning of dangers and assisting in matters of protecting privacy (oversight etc.), and banning stalkers, even if the evidence is off-wiki. As far as legal aid etc, I am not a lawyer, but would have thought it would be difficult to find WMF culpable unless someone of WMF of arbcom was clearly and directly responsible for an error which led to a deleterious situation for a user. Can't think of a scenario OTTOMH though.

c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?

This is very tricky, apart from general advice on privacy, and oversight to assist, I am not sure what else can be offered.

d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.

You mean a notable person? with an article on themselves on WP? I suppose one could fully-protect the article, leaving only admins to edit it and a note to contact arbcom if need be, but then there are privacy reasons as to why the article is fully protected etc.....hmmm. tricky. Legally depends on the circumstances, and raises the issue of contacting legal authorities in the jurisdiction covered really.

e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?

Easy solution is to find a mutually acceptable neutral senior editor of good standing to review (and discuss)
A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
In extreme cases of sociopathic editors yes(i.e. revert is ok). In more general cases of banned editors, who had made good contributions before they were banned tehn these should be assessed by experienced editors familair with the material and swallowed up in article improvement. Ultimately the 'pedia is bigger than all these.
What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?

Can't control what goes on off-wiki so question is moot. Whether it is 'acceptable or 'unacceptable' one has no control over. Note that this is meant for constructive criticism. Personal attacks/stalking are not on, period.

b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?

Nope

c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?

I think a broader defined and membered WR inclusive of constructive criticism is better than a marginalised WR with fringe elements and vitriol. Wikback, as it was not as antipathetic as it were, could have taken place on-wiki quite easily, so was, in a way, redunndant. But I think these things often sink or swim with numbers of users, and it failed to reach critical mass.

d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?

Constructive discourse is always useful. Schisms and extremism are bad, hence participating is better than not, though I can fully understand why some would not go near WR and expunge it from their place of editing.

e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )

Yes. It is in my name as me. I am not thrilled with yet more pseudonyms but again can concede why people do it. Not ideal but sometimes if people need it to feel they can be more frank then it may serve a purpose.
Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with meatball:VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
Distinguishing between long-time valued contributors and the pejortaive term "vested contributors" can be tricky. I think as time goes on there are more of the former and less of teh latter, as roles become more defined. I may be completely wrong on this though as I am not a huge dweller on wikipedia talk pages.
What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
Green, dunno why initially, but I always liked it as a little kid. Can later rationalise it has something to do with the environment and gardening but there you go.

Questions from Heimstern[edit]

Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
Need to read up on these...I did have a thought that the last resort is lengthy full-protection for difficult pages so only admins can edit. A page could be "opened" upon request for (supervised) editing for a set period of, say 1 week, and then "closed" for 1 3 months. (changed length after talking to Moreschi) During this latter period, a 1RR applies and non-admins must request permission to edit a page from an admin.
Civility restrictions: Civility restrictions imposed by the Arbcom seem to frequently prove divisive among administrators enforcing them. Frequently, one administrator feels the user in question has been uncivil and should be blocked, while another disagrees and unblocks shortly thereafter. Should the committee seek to change this? If so, how? Different restrictions? Different wording? Using them less frequently or not at all? Is there anything you would change about the committee's approach to the civility policy?
The nebulousness of "civility" undermines alot of this. I am thinking that somehow a redefinition and classification is in order, with an overall discussion and regard of tendentious editing, Personal Attacks, Civility, trolling and baiting all subsumed into a discussion on "Editing which gratuitously serves to further sour or mar the editing atmosphere", as this is what we are talking about. Thus baiting an angry editor or editor known to have a hot temper is equally as problematic as a civility violation. I would also expect admins to know who is on a civility vulnerability for lack of a better word.

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare[edit]

What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
I hate the whole idea of oppose votes as I feel it fosters negative interactions. Surely just the support section is enough? However, in answer to the question, I don't have a concrete amount, only whatever the election decides and whether I am above or below the cutoff.
Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
I would have to think on this as to the best way forward. I'll get back to you on that one

Questions from UninvitedCompany[edit]

Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
mainly biology thus far, wasn't initially that keen on mixing work with play but things change and I have found the need to weigh into some stuff I know a bit about as well...
Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
I am a psychiatrist in Sydney, Australia.
Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
Always my own identity, active ones include(d) wikiproject birds, wikiproject banksia, wikiproject medicine, and wikiproject dinosaurs. All resulted in great collaborations and Featured content. Wikiproject fungi never really got of the ground. I tried to engineer collaboration in mammals and plants but they didn't fly at the time either.

Outside wikipedia, I was involved a bit in envirotalk administratively but not much, and participated in a non admin part at various gardning and genealogy websites under 'Casliber'
Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
As an inclusionist, I did get involved a bit in TV episodes Arb Case but was not singled out for sanctions. Can't recall any others.
Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations? If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?
Apart from being a psychiatrist no
Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
Erm..a consultant at hospital, so I chair meetings and treating teams. I have been on committees of state-based branches of my college of psychiatry as well as gardening groups.
Have you publicly revealed your actual name and address? Do you plan to do so if elected? If not, how do you plan to respond to any threats you may receive to publicize this information?
Name yes, address no (other than city). Depends on the nature of the outing.
Do you have any friends, family members, or other people close to you IRL who edit Wikipedia? What are their user names and their relationships to you?
Alastair Haines is the only editor I knew before coming to WP. My brother in law has an account but has very rarely edited and is busy IRL.
Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
meetups in Sydney and Perth; I have participated in both Wikbak and Wikipedia Review, but I have not singled out editors for attack there and limited myself to constructive comments.
What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee? Do they all carry equal weight?
Not sure what you mean, apart from the community here and the furtherment of the encyclopedia
What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept? Refuse?
Some flexibility is required, conduct and disputes as a rule that have failed to be solved otherwise. Some scope for lateral thinking and problem solving may be needed in other areas for smooth running of the 'pedia. Not sure exaclty what yet though.
How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
Depends on scenario. I think personal attacks, outing and stalking are what they are regardless of where they occur really.
What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
I guess banning is a last resort if an editor has persistently failed to be able to edit collaboratively with others. I think civility resrtictions have been problematic. I have an idea about a "civility group board" I am thinking about. Mentorship is not bad but may be seen as patronising by estabnlished editors. I think it is ambitious to assume that editors will be able to revert established problematic patterns of interacting with others, wthout some form of outside help or guidance.
Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?
Ensure the workload gives arbs ample time to interact with other editors outside arbcom. If this can be done under current arragments fine, if not I will raise it as something to look at.
Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most? Why?
I have not been privy to much of the debate which goes on behind closed doors so to speak. I am impressed with people that are available, and pragmatic and speak clearly, especially with some form of algorithm. I have seen NewYorkBrad do this, which is a good thing. Anyone that gets stuck into article writing and wikiprojects is OK in my book as well, so I guess that's a thumbs up for Kirill Lokshin too.
To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
Difficult to say, to what extent can we get absolte proof WRT IP addresses etc. I have been highly dubious of some explanations for identical IP use.)
What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
Not had much to do with them to date.
To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
Very important for images, not looked into it in such great detail for written material but I can see the need to private correspondence and it is important for the 'pedia to provide an avenue for this.
Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
? erm...I don't think so. Hadn't given it any thought until you asked.

Questions from TomasBat[edit]

In general, which of these 2 concepts do you regard as higher priority? The concept of "user" as another human being or "what's best for the encyclopedia"? (would you be 200% fair and patient to a relatively new good faith user at the expense of commiting to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)

well...if you have no users, then you have no 'pedia. It isn't as simple as quantifying one vs. the other. OTOH the pedia is bigger and more important than one user alone. I guess what I do is try to be as prospective and forward looking as possible; if I revert or otherwise change a newbie's edits, i try to add or imporve the article so I can impress that I mean well. talking and explaining is good too.

Question from MBisanz[edit]

In the past there have been issues with arbitrators who did not reveal their real life identity onwiki, being harassed offwiki with the threat of revealing it. If you have not revealed your identity publicly and were threatened with someone revealing it with the intent to harass you, how would you respond? If your identity is already public, feel free to ignore this question.
ok, I will

Questions from Pixelface[edit]

Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you were listed as an involved party. (I am speaking of closed cases as well as active cases). Do you think the remedies given in the case(s) were helpful in resolving any disputes?
That'd be you and me both PF. Nope, it emboldened the main antagonist TTN after the parole period wore off. Problem was that content issues and ambiguity of interpretation of notability criteria undermined the ability of arbcom to act decisively. There are some cases that cannot be taken in isolation on a reductionist viewpoint.
Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you, acting as a non-member of the committee, have provided a statement, or evidence, or /Workshop material. Do you feel it was worth your time in each case?
I might have made some minor comments here and there but nothing leaps to mind as substantive.
Please list all the requests for arbitration you've made. (If you can't remember them all, please describe some of the ones you *do* remember).
zip

Questions from Badger Drink[edit]

It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?
See below for Matthew Hoffman, and....
What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
Hmm...I have no idea what went on behind closed doors before the case but its creation and then dissolution was not a good look. Bit hard for me to be impartial as (a) OM is a wikibuddy (b) I have seen him and others besieged at several high conflict controversial articles and am mindful of Raul's essay on Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, and (c) I am a medical doctor as well. I suppose if FT2 were initiating the case, the best option would have been to make a Request for Arbitration and then recuse himself from the decision making process as an involved party, however, this makes private discussion difficult as he is privy to the mailing list. There then could be a second more-private mailinglist of arbs minus involved I suppose. Roles need to be clear and weren't in this case. One cannot be a plaintiff and jury on the same case.
This final question may be frustratingly broad - and might be superceded by smaller, more focused questions on individual aspects of the incident. But let's just get a broad overview for the time being: What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?
I can see you have already voted, and I had meant to get back to you on this one. My first impression was...well, my eyes glazed over; so many people posted and the structure was such that I tuned out really. I got mixed messages on the time taken to wind up cases, I know that. More later.

Question from BirgitteSB[edit]

Due to concerns over the way a non-public case was handled I once suggested some minimum standards for such cases [1]. Which follow slightly clarified:

Have at least two arbitrators develop comprehensive presentations of evidence in isolation.
Allow all parties concerned to review at least the portions of the evidence presentations regarding their owns actions before any decision is reached.

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

Very interesting. Human beings are an immensely suggestible lot, so a two separate interpretations of "pure" data might be a better bet than one arb collating the info and possibly comment upon it before/as/after being communicated to other arbs. I have not seen the archives so can't comment on the inner workings as yet, but it does have merit...

Questions from Kristen Eriksen[edit]

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

The good thing is in an article on the subject, one can go into detail and describe the sources, studies and issues. Medicine is good as Cochrane provides a pretty good standard place to start. I think it is better in these cases to list the more important studies and criticisms as well, especially why and how there is a discrepancy between mainstream and fringe findings. It gets trickier when one has to summarise into a sentence or two, either in the lead of an article, or where a treatment is mentioned as part of another subject page (eg. acupuncture in an article on major depressive disorder), when one has to prioritise info and give a very succinct summary. We do have a hierarchy - I am not too fussed about which company publishes the journals, more about the journals and their profile and status themselves, and quality of material and where and how it is sourced. I am a doctor and can access fulltext of loads of medical stuff to check :)

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

I am not hugely sure what you are getting at, but I think a good principle is to restrict content which may offend some to a minimum and use only for what is necessary. It is prudent to keep content accessible to as broad a section of the population as possible. It would be a shame to see the 'pedia's use restricted in, say, conservative schools because it had an excess of naughty images

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

Similar to above - in a detailed article we can very easily write about the varying points of view/findings, the rigour of the studies and how and why they conflict with each other. Erm....the one you list above is actually a primary source, so we'd really want a Review article for the subject, although we may mention the study if we were going into some detail...

Questions From Ϣere Spiel Chequers[edit]

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

How many arbitration cases have you fully reviewed (or participated in as an Arbcomm member)?
Admittedly not many, especially not fully. I have been lucky in that for the most part, the areas I have edited in (biology) over the past few years have been collaborative and non-controversial, and I have had little contact with many of the cases that have come up. This did change with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2 which I was named as a party.
In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?
I theory, this should be a relatively straightforward task as a case can be reopened or appended to and directives altered as seen fit. It would depend on workload really.

Ϣere Spiel Chequers 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question(s) from LtPowers[edit]

There seems to me to be a significant portion of the community that has lost, or is beginning to lose, trust in the ability of the Arbitration Committee to fairly and effectively adjudicate cases. Do you agree with that basic assessment? If so, what do you think might be the major factor contributing to this attitude, and how might you attempt to modify ArbCom procedures and policies to regain that trust? (Note: I recognize that many of the disaffected are simply apathetic or permanently cynical on the subject, and nothing ArbCom could do would restore a trust that was never there to begin with. My question relates to those members of the community who might be persuadable if their specific objections were addressed.) Powers ^T 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I do. I think the vast majority of editors just edit and don't give arbcom too much thought really. I think the possibility of overstating or understating dissatisfaction with arbom is such that speculation on the definition or scope of "singificant portion" is possibly pointless. As I have said elsewhere, having arbcom members have a higher profile and availability in other areas of WP will go a long way to fostering an atmosphere of trust and availability. Clarifying the most contentious areas of WP (BLP issues, notability, civility and ethnic and alternative medicine/medicine issues) will help as well. How does one adjudicate decisively when the very definition of teh issue being debated is under a cloud?

Individual questions[edit]

Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

Question from Gnangarra[edit]

What actions would you recommend to users who have;

been sanctioned by ARBCOM
community banned or
long term block

to re-establish their standing with community. Gnan garra 13:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all, take it as a given that the consensus is you've done something wrong and you have to cop it on the chin so-to-speak. Unless you have some gobsmackingly amazing new evidence, not much is gonna change. Just comply with the restrictions and show your productiveness around it by building a 'pedia with a minimum of fuss and avoiding the areas, people and situations which give you problems. And try to convince others you have tried to understand what the issue is. It always takes two to tango.

Questions from Will Beback[edit]

This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?

Nope. Never have in my time on wikipedia.

2. Is it appropriate for editors to create joke accounts, role accounts, "personality" accounts, etc., to have fun or to make a point? Should socks be allowed to edit policies, engage in RfCs and ArbCom cases, or seek positions of trust in the community? Or should undisclosed alternate accounts be used only with care in limited circumstances?

I have been amused by the whole Bish-x family I suppose. If it adds to community-building (similar to such things as barnstars, bounties, userboxes) I am not too worried, as a certain amount of community identity I do feel adds to the sense of connection editors feel, and thus assist in morale and output. I would have been less inclined for the joke account to participate on arbcom as I suspect the demeanour may not have been too congruous with arbcom work. It was however a disclosed account. I was initially against all forms of covert socking, yet do concede there may be some delicate areas where necessary, such as editing highly controversial articles, Still not entirely convinced though.

3. Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?

I strongly agree; this is a significant problem and one that will only increase as the 'pedia gets larger and higher profile. I have not looked in depth at many cases, although I suspect that most "ghost" accounts will display some evidence of unempathic or manipulative behaviour (unless very clever). It may be worth getting a working group to look at this issue in detail (has it been done before?) and make some recommendations - eg I am not familiar with why checkuser only "lasts" a short time before going stale etc. The other way is to monitor the articles in question; I have not familiarised myself with the issues and subsequent arb rulings at pedophilia and similar cases.

Questions from FT2[edit]

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

There is clear agreement that all is not well, in all ways, at Arbcom. Many users standing will be hoping to change that, as many did last year. What aspects work well, and what are the core changes you feel would help change the ones that don't?
Gosh "all is not well, in all ways" doesn't sound good! Anyway, it is often the case that what works well does so without a huge fuss, and it seems to me that many cases pass through without too much fuss. Of course parties are upset at being scrutinised and often complain about it afterwards. The range of opinions is so diverse that a middle ground is often hard to strike successfully. Some complaints seem to highlight some form od schism with sections of the wikipedia community, which is not a good thing and work needs to be done to reconcile this and engender an atmosphere of "togetherness" I guess. NYB aside, none of the arbs have a huge presence outside arbcom, but then again that may be a function of where I edit (hence only my POV). Developing a desysop process is worthwhile, with a subcommittee of either bureaucrats, or arbs, or both. I do like the idea of some deevolution to give a greater diversity in leadership and opinion-forming throughout the 'pedia. I think it has grown enough to encompass that. Also because there will be issues where COI crops up.
Ex-arbitrators and Jimbo are privy to various Arbcom dialogs. What impressions do you have regarding the nature and extent of their involvement in the sitting arbitrators' discussions? How do you imagine their activity looks, on the Committee's mailing list/s, and in particular when the topic is a controversial matter, one that ex-arbitrators may have views on, or some other significant matter?
Erm..as I am not privy to these communications I don't know. However I would speculate that Jimbo and some ex-arbs such as Raul654 are pretty busy and may not contribute that frequently. I could be wrong though. I am all for seeking the opinion of ex-arbs on longitudinal issues, but I think it can be on a need-to-know basis.
Two questions, or two sides of the same question. Your choice.
a) Arbcom involves matters that Arbitrators may decide need to be kept out of the public domain, for various reasons that vary between privacy breach and avoidance of harm, to reducing disruption. You-personally-may come under suspicion from some users regarding such matters if you do so. It is unlikely that you will be able to do the job properly without offending a range of users, and unlikely you will be able to always explain your actions as an admin might in a range of circumstances. Thoughts?
b) As the community has become more versatile in handling everyday forms of disruptive conduct, Arbcom cases have tended to cover a higher proportion of cases where privacy is a significant issue, and cases where there are factors involved that some will argue cannot be fully disclosed due to privacy, WP:BEANS or other effects that would be harmful to the project. At the same time the community wishes greater levels of disclosure, and some will demand it, often without regard to harm (which they may not be aware is a possibility if their requests are met). Communal benefit, or user safety, may be at risk in some of these. And yet you are also there to do right by the project and community. You will be a decision-maker in the question of what to make public, and indeed, when to not even explain why something will not be made public (because of concerns over consequences or fairness). Thoughts?

No brainer. I work in medicine where confidentiality is a big issue; we have to make this sorta decisions all the time over what is confidential and what needs to be imparted to others. Also, from what I know of some cases, it is going to be unavoidable that there are some subjects I cannot discuss. This is where a familiarity with the community in general is good. If I tell a stack of wiki-chums that I really cannot discuss stuff, it goes down alot more easily than if I am some far-off figure who doesn't communicate much outside of arbcom with a vague "trust us"
Seasoned and respected users appointed to Arbcom routinely believe they will not burn out. Yet, equally routinely, a proportion do (or become markedly less responsive over time, or less likely to keep pushing to reduce long standing issues). Why should users feel you stand a chance of lasting the course and remaining strongly involved in a year's time?
Erm..been around a bit I guess. I am older, which generally means I stick at things longer (years rather than months). might have a think on this one..
Many disputes stem from poor following of communal norms (including policies), or norms that are problematic, insufficient, disputed or conflicting in the face of some new kind of issue. When standards lapse, or dispute arises due to such issues, how hard should Arbcom push the community in expressing the pursuit of higher standards or better consensus as a "need" rather than a "request"?
Depends on the issue; substansive policy change has to come from the community not arbcom, though the latter can certainly (strongly) recommend it. Arbs with more spare time can get stuck into policy issues better. A case which crashes and leaves nobody happy, such as the TV episodes 2 one, are generally a good guide to stuff which needs working on. Civility is another area too.
If appointed, what would you consider your personal sense of "your mandate" to be? (This is not asking what Arbitrators should do; rather it is asking what you see as your personal special agenda, or "matters and issues to especially focus on", out of all the areas of Arbitrator work and activities, as a Committee member.)
Hopefully (with my background) provide a more sophisticated analysis of people's behaviour WRT future editing, resulting in a (hopefully) better management plan to avoid further crises and improve outcome. It is tricky to elaborate without discussing particular difficult editors so that will have to suffice.
How will being on Arbcom affect your actions, or choices about how to act, in other capacities - as an editor, user, admin, or the like?
Hopefully I will still be able to coordinate some wikiprojects and bang out a few Featured Articles! I am being flogged by Awadewit and Yellowmonkey on the ladder!

This was what I was pondering about workload; some cases take months to conclude and I suspect some arbs are doing little else outside arbcom-related activities. Looking at NYB and you (FT2), I see little mainspace editing. Fair enough if it is busy, either on- or off-wiki, but it would be nice that some arbs could be more involved elsewhere if time permitted. I haven't checked other arb's mainspace activity yet.

I expect to add a couple more to these, and will be interested to see the results. They are intended to be searching. Feedback will be provided. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from harej[edit]

Assess this statement: "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee exists to promulgate the good times." To what extent is this statement valid, and to what extent should things change to reflect this statement? --harej 01:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

erm, not sure exactly what you mean..but I do think that a sense of community and trust is facilitated by arbs having the time to muck in other areas of article writing etc. as restricting the bulk of interactions to arb cases, because of time/workload restrictions, is not conducive to warm and friendly interactions and engendering a good atmosphere. Feel free to clarify your question as I am not sure exactly what you are getting at.

How about "is one of ArbCom's responsibilities to promote happiness? And if not, should it be?" --harej 02:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, ok, then indirectly yes, inasmuch it is the responsibility on one level of admins, crats and other senior contributores to contribute to a positive morale and healthy atmosphere. The members of arbcom, as a fairly central body, has an important role in this as ambassadors and authority figures. As a volunteer project, it is critical that people enjoy their time here. One has to bear in mind the ultimate reasons people contribute to the 'pedia, which are multiple. Driving off casual or established contributors leaves the way open for a higher proportion of contributors who edit for other reasons such as pushing a particular POV or ethos, not a good place to be. how's that?

Question from Rspeer[edit]

Sorry about not getting this in the general questions.

In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is science a point of view, or is it a way of finding the neutral point of view? Or does it differ based on the topic of the article? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I guess I look at things in terms of paradigm theory, mindful of Thomas Kuhn, who I have only looked at snippets of but like the idea. Namely thus - the ultimate 'truth' of an object can never be known, we know and measure all things by various paradigms and means of observation - all are estimates according to one paradigm or another. The beauty of scientific method is its ability to assess, test, reassess and adapt or change as new information comes to light (ideally anyway). There is no scientific POV but often many POVs or observations based on paradigms within science swimming around. All cool. various fields are able to measure and assess with extremely widely differing degrees of certainty, and it is important to describe what is known and what is hypothesized. In short, I am not keen on the division of 'science' and 'non-science' (indeed there are areas where the discrepancies within "science" are probably larger than without, but i can't think of one ATM) but more an accurate depiction of how evidence and facts have been gathered from a variety of sources. Thus in a detailed article, one can present diverse points of view and rebuttals etc. of same. Does that make sense?

I suppose I need to refine my question a bit. I'm quite aware of areas where the largest disagreements are within science -- scientists in many fields disagree fiercely about psychological nativism, for example, while most people don't give a crap. But what seems to show up more often as Wikipedia disputes, the kind that end up in front of ArbCom, are cases where non-scientific beliefs conflict with a scientific consensus.

Rather than dig up particular ongoing disputes which would have no business appearing on an ArbCom questions page, I'll use a hypothetical example. We have an article on Fan death, and right now it is introduced with "Fan death is a South Korean urban legend". The article is up front with the fact that fan death is not real (and you can tell that I consider this a good thing). But suppose we all held the beliefs of the South Koreans -- suppose that "everybody knew" that fan death happened, including a majority of Wikipedia editors, with the exceptions being some pesky scientists objecting that it couldn't possibly be true. Would it be appropriate and NPOV for the article to instead begin with something like "Fan death is a common seasonal summer cause of death", with the scientists' dismissal in a later section, instead of the other way around like it is now? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get you. Well, the beauty of being familiar with and thinking in paradigms is you can use it to frame these issues succinctly. eg "Fan Death is a widely held urban belief..." (sentence 1)"Examination of evidence.../analysis...etc..not to have any basis/is untrue" (sentence 2). Describing something as "popularly believed", "widely reported" allows one to capture the "reality" if you like. We had a recent discussion on major depressive disorder where I had to think of a way forward. There are individual studies here and there showing benefit of exercise in MDD, but metaanalysis shows no significant benefit. So there is a dissonance in reporting which can be solved by stating "Exercise has not been shown to be of benefit in MDD" (which is true, supports the metaanalysis yet does not refute individual studies per se. How's that?

Questions from Ncmvocalist[edit]

1. This question pertains to the current request to amend the Matthew Hoffman case decided in 2007. Assume you are part of the Committee, and just returned from a wikibreak. You are presented with that request and the other statements/comments/replies that are currently viewable. (a) Do you consider this case to be distinct from other cases - if so, how? (b) Would you support a motion to vacate the case? (c) How would you have voted on each of the current motions and why? (d) Would you have made an alternate motion proposal - if so, what would it be? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having dealt with mysterious new users who are familiar with wikimarkup within their first two edits, I find it is difficult under the common checkuser/sockpuppet customs to address this. The new account is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account engaged in fairly confrontational editing, and claiming not to know 3RR (which I find odd). Now all one has to do is have a mild degree of sophistication with a good-hand bad-hand account and you are exempt from investigation unless you let slip some giveaway. This is one of the dark sides of anonymous editing. I can't see any note on it on the page, but as it was crucial to the case, I would hope that the account was checkusered, and if not, would have pushed for it. It is a pity someone else didn't do the block on MatthewHoffman instead of the user involved. One useful piece of advice for admins if there is any air of COI and any doubt is to ask another admin; if they consider the block appropriate then fine, if not, well, there may be an issue which needs examining. However, yet again this case is part of a larger problem WRT policy on suspected sockpuppets/checkusers - WP's profile has grown in the last 3-4 years, and it is logical to assume that as the 'reward' of altering an article is greater now, so the efforts of those seeking devious means to do so will be greater and more elaborate. Regarding Findings of Fact - 5 is a gross stretch from "insufficient basis.." to "no evidence", while 9.1, semiprotection does nothing in a dispute with established users; they can still edit, and IPs popping up may be a sign of others editing (on either side) while logged out. Hence it is a good protective measure for all to work towards resolution.

PS: Essentially, I can't see what has been done to rule out a planned entrapment of hot-blooded admin with a sock, which was my first impression (but then as a science editor I wonder if I am biased...).

Very interesting comments (none of which need be removed). However, I consider this answer incomplete - could you please review and address the questions b, c and d in particular? Cheers Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding (b), I would vacate the case. Blanking without vacating strikes me as leaving it in somewhat of a limbo. Either it is a case or not. ~~I need to re-read the case more thoroughly to address (c) and (d).~~ I'd oppose all, though consider the first option (vacate/consult with committee before any RfA) the second best choice. My alternate motion would be simple, vacate case and let SH seek readminship the normal way should he so choose. The community will decide whether they accept him as an admin, and given what has gone on before, I suspect this would involve a lengthy period of good conduct (I would guess 9 months). Note this last is not whether I would support him, but my guess about the community at large. (Personally I recognise the difficult area edited in and would allow for that, and probably support more quickly than most). In a nutshell, if the case is vacated, the need for SH to consult with the arbs is not required.

2. The community have, on occasions, found it difficult to have poorly written or handled ArbCom decisions reversed, even today. What mechanisms (if any) would you propose to remedy this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vacating action looks good; if an older case cannot be vacated (for instance, if there were more than one editor involved or scrutinized), then another case needs to be listed as superseding the first, and each linked prominently to the other. Other solutions may arise as I become more familiar with the history.

3. One of the major concerns with certain past and current arbitrators is their failure to handle ArbCom tasks in a prompt or timely manner. What steps will you take to help move things along? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that NewYorkBrad had given some time period guidelines in this proposal which looked like a good start. I would support this.

4. (A) What is your stance on tendentious problem editing? (B) Why do you believe the community is, at times, passive in dealing with this issue? (C) If you are appointed as an ArbCom member, what steps (if any) will you take to help ensure this issue is actively dealt with by ArbCom? (D) What proposals would you make to deal with (or remedy) this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(A) I have found it a great drain on morale and resources, and have tried to define one kind of problem editing here as tendentious but met with stiff opposition. (B) apart from the edit warring, the vague and to some degree contentious civility guidelines, and sock issues, this area is poorly defined; also, a modicum of intelligence and patience allows one to skirt guidelines without committing a "hanging offence" so to speak. (C and D) It is difficult to gain consensus on definitions as it is. I have been musing on this alot recently, the most obvious thing to me at present is to clarify in each case how a particular behaviour is disruptive or draining in the pursuit of building a neutral, referenced, balanced and comprehensive encyclopedia, and thus the best way forward is to define each behaviour by its impact on this goal (in a way bypassing guidelines if they shortcircuit this process). This may need refining somehow

Unless to clarify anything above, I have no further questions for the candidate. Thank you for your time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Al tally[edit]

Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly, without any issues. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.
Hmmm...the more I think about it, the more a process similar to bureaucratship looks attractive (with a high benchmark for acceptance of ~ 90% or so). One needs to get rid of any semblance of COI; critics could argue that friendship with arb members could go a long way in choosing who gains rights. Like adminship, the idea of "can this person be trusted with the tools" is the crux of the issue. Like bureaucratship, opening it up to the community allows a much greater scrutiny of a candidate than by application to arbcom. I am sure that, like with RfA and RfB, arbs and senior editors participating and passing favourable (or otherwise) comments will be taken in by the community. Improving the trust and acceptance of the community at large is good for morale for the project overall, and tehre is alot more to gain by having the granting of rights as an open process than there is to lose. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See this oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds just like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' [Arbitrators] 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' [Motions, voting to reject, accept etc. Basically, a community version of ArbCom]. Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator. Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone without going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).
Interesting. One idea - if we do go down a road of having a subcommittee/quorum of bureaucrats (rather than arbcom) perform vetting or confirming desysop proposals, then it is a small jump to use the same subcommittee for review of any rights, such as checkuser, and even arbcom status. The group would review claims and maybe recommend to Jimbo if they do see that there is a real problem. The bureaucrats as a group are a natural source of editors in very good standing to form some sort of committee outside arbcom. Many governments have an Upper House, or Senate, so some form of (somewhat) independent review/vetting process, so that there is a natural channel for checks and balances. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Former Arbitrators - should they lose CU/OS privs, and access to the Mailing list? After all, they resigned, so aren't interested in doing the work. Therefore, they have no need for such rights. If you resigned, would you surrender such privs?
I guess the algorithm would work something like this:
1. Community vote on non-arbcom checkusers granted (a) by arbcom, or (b) by community in model similar to 'cratship.
2. If community model successful and a person was granted rights by being an arb, then they should lose or reapply as per 'cratship model above.
3. Some decisions need to be made about gradfathering or existing checkusers. My understanding is that there is some controversy. I need to look at total numbers before figuring out the way that keeps the 'pedia running yet allows vetting of issues.
Recall - if the community have an issue with your use of CU/OS, or actions as an Arbitrator, what effective way can they address this? (Taking it to ArbCom is the wrong answer, by the way).

Good luck with the election! Al Tally ^talk 19:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thx. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by M.K.[edit]

Are there any areas, in which you wouldn't participate as Arbiter during Arb. cases? M.K. (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, any where I could be seen to have a COI, and others felt the same way. Mainly this could occur with wiki-chums being involved in cases. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Mattisse[edit]

Do you think you could possibly consider removing the "Cheers" from you signature, as it is darn irritating, especially when you are not saying nice things. As an Arbiter, would you sign everything with the automatic "Cheers"? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what I am going to do, I will go with consensus (don't worry, I stuck your vote in already) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from seresin[edit]

What do you plan to do (should you be appointed) if TTN is brought back before ArbCom, accused of engaging in behavior similar to what caused him to be sanctioned in E&C I, II? seresin ( ¡? ) 04:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. I think in all honesty I would have to recuse. I could probably convince myself that I could be objective, but I suspect a large number of other editors couldn't or wouldn't; thus I would be undermining their trust in arbcom's deliberations and this would not be a good thing in an area that is already acrimonious and divisive enough as is. I suspect that I may have input as a contributor, and I certainly have a non-impartial opinion. I have a strong view that purely reverting and removing content is at best tendentious editing and at worst vandalism on a massive scale, however the only time I proposed this it was extremely unpopular, so I recognise this as clearly not consensus. I am well aware that I am much more along the inclusionist end of the spectrum than 'consensus' or 'the norm' (whatever that means). I am happy to elaborate more if you want. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Given your admission above, do you plan to participate in any RfArs in which interpretation of, and action due to, the notability guideline, plays any significant role? Do you still support extraordinary restrictions, such as requiring them to have 25% of their edits be building content, should they be deemed by somebody to be 'contentious'? seresin ( ¡? ) 05:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thought you might. As I mentioned above, that proposal sunk like a stone well and truly. The only way I would raise it again is if I raised it as an editor (not an arb) in a general proposal to the wiki-community, that is, nothing to do with arbcom, and if that proposal was passed by a clear majority, then would I think about it (but then it would be a general policy then wouldn't it, so would be redundant to use in arb case...hmmmm...). As far as notability issues in general, if I did think I could be impartial (let's say it was a case somewhat farther removed from the TV episodes) but did involve notability in some way, I would be content to let the community decide; I would note this on the initial accept/reject/recuse statement that I would recuse if a section of the community felt strongly that I may not be impartial in a particular case and present a plausible case, as trust from the bottom up is necessary to restore a global sense of confidence in the impartiality of the committee. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you support that specific editing restriction in general, but not imposed by the ArbCom? How would you collect the opinions of the 'section of the community'? seresin ( ¡? ) 06:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I personally think it is a good idea from what I have seen. However, I should strike this above as what I meant was "The only way...if.." (i.e. conditional sentence in the case that I ever did want to pursue it) which I wouldn't pursue as I highly suspect people wouldn't support it, and I have better things to do with my time. Does that make sense? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion on how the recent Giano drama, and subsequent SlimVirgin brouhaha, were handled? seresin ( ¡? ) 07:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I give you a curveball award and you really go to town with it....this is an interim answer and I am pretty tired at the moment) Arbcom is a last resort vehicle to review disputes, conduct and otherwise possibly problem-solve areas - the object being the smooth running and continued growth of the 'pedia. The $64 question is has this sufficiently derailed to become a long-running dispute between a number of individuals, with little effect on the actual running of the 'pedia, and the dispute resolution involving an order of magnitude more time than the original dispute in the first place. In noted the IRC debate and my views on interactions on IRC echo Kirill's here. Comments readable by others, whether on IRC, WP or blogs are accessible and should not be ignored if personal attacks, outing etc. are made. Giano was (rightfully) angry about the situation, and some reform was to take place although I am unsure of its progress. I have seen alot of sniping on both sides over the past few months, which appears to have resulted in a polarisation of opinions. I suspect a mediation of some sort, with each side stating a desired outcome and working towards common goals is in order (I will check to see if something has been done along these lines)

However, although a dispute the other issue at foot is authority and process - i.e. we can't just ignore the processes in place if we are unhappy with them, this is what RfC (among other mechanisms) is for; I have read this essay of Scott/DocG's and some of it I agree with. Upon reflection, I can understand the desysopping and then auto resysopping at 6-months of SV; the unblocking carried on the dispute unfortunately and it really needs to be stamped out. Furthermore, SV has been involved in previous issues of conflict and this would have been more important WRT outcome I think. I do feel for her, though I have never interacted with her. I haven't looked at the Gerard case close enough to comment. As far as Giano, I have interacted with him and found him amiable (to me) so it is a little hard for me to be impartial.

For editors who are high mainspace contributors, rather than blocks, I would think restrictions to mainspace or article talkspace only for extended periods are an option (before blocking outright, and blocking for violating this policy). I do worry that editors known to have short tempers may be baited or trolled as well.

Feel free to ask more, I will read up on Gerard and ferret out any formal mediation attempts.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Pohta ce-am pohtit[edit]

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

Do you think that the special civility restrictions enacted by ArbCom in several cases have been successful? If not, what would you do propose instead?

The Giano case has gone way beyond civility of a single editor; it is part of a larger issue with Giano and a significant number of others feeling aggrieved about issues to do with arbcom and some members, and IRC. I suggest a round table mediation might be the way to go in this case. In others, possibly better. I think that if an editor has recurrent difficulties interacting with others, they are unlikely to sponteneously "learn" how to be "civil". Mentorship needs to be considered (maybe a group mentorship of all editors under civility sanctions in the one place to minimise stigma), and stiff sanctions for baiting or trolling editors in this situation as this is as disruptive.

Should a single admin A be allowed to undo an action of another admin B when the latter is claiming to act under the provisions of an ArbCom case (WP:AE)? If the answer is no, what should be done about admin A?

A single admin A should not be undoing the action of admin B without some discussion and consensus regardless of whether admin B's actions are under the auspices of arbcom or not - period. A spontaneous undo needs to be examined in each case, with sanctions depending on the circumstances - anywhere from a caution to a desysop. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ling.Nut[edit]

I'm asking this of everyone; it didn't occur to me to ask 'til after the "general questions" were closed. This also isn't a vanity question intended to pump my essay. I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
Would you please read the (very, very, very short) essay at User:Ling.Nut/3IAR and indicate how much you agree or disagree with its points? If it helps at all, the essay was originally written as a response to an admin who insisted that I was not permitted to make my talk page a redirect to my user page. He did so even though there is (or was at that time?) no rule or guideline to this effect, and far more importantly, even though my actions were harming neither the encyclopedia nor any of its editors.
Thank you for your time. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, a deep and meaningful essay that. Sounds like my job too primum non nocere and all that. I suppose it sits nicely between IAR and the five pillars - possibly a slightly more embellished version of IAR, but sort of an "ignore all but three rules...". Yeah, I agree at the end of the day, teh role of arbcom, admins, crats, blocking and banning is the greater goal of building a 'pedia, and sometimes new interpretations are needed to deal with issues which come up. At the same time, instruction creep and bureaucracy are not doing the 'pedia any good if editors are discouraged or leave. I like the idea that the 'pedia is a level playing field (well, more level than life off wiki anyway!), and that treating people as autonomous entities with respect hopefully brings out the best in them. I always like to mould editor behaviour with carrots rather than sticks if possible. Might add more to this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up questions from FT2[edit]

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

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

Flexibility:
a) What experience do you have at a range of Wikipedia dispute resolution "styles", and in estimating how users may react to a given response? (This is a fairly essential skill in deciding whether to play hard or soft, direct or mediated, give another chance, discuss further, draw a line, or "try something new" in a case.)

b) Please outline your track record at choosing remedies that are effective, but not overly-excessive, in a sample of difficult cases.
(Note:- in a lot of cases, a remedy may potentially be "multi stage"; that is, take a step, see what effect it has, return to it if needed. This may include watching or warning first times, taking a tougher line later, or deciding it's an acceptable risk if they act up again, since action could be taken in future if needed. Although mild, it's a valid approach. I'd be fine if you use it, and what you do when it fails.

c) Please show some cases you gave a seemingly difficult user a chance to reform (when others were skeptical), and where you drew a very hard but fair line on a problematic user.

d) Please highlight a project space matter where there was much divisive opinion but where other administrators (on both "sides") listened to you, and you helped focus or resolve it.
Conduct under pressure:
a) Please point out a case you took a stand that was not universally popular, knowing you could face retaliation or rebuke.

b) Please point out a matter where you were badly attacked, accused, or heavily provoked, but remained in line with "best practice" conduct, yourself.

c) Please point out a dispute where you faced people trying to redirect the matter to a side-issue (soapbox, hobby horse, etc) and your response was to avoid the "invitation" of distraction, and to keep the focus on the main target.

d) Please point out a serious dispute which occupied your attention for between 2 weeks and several months, and which shows your sticking power and handling in the context of protracted disputes.

Like the previous questions, they are intended to be searching. Feedback will also be provided. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My general style in these situations is pragmatic and down-to-earth; I try to list good and bad points and try to focus on solutions and looking forward. I have not been in too many situations where I was an authority as I am mainly an article writer; some that come to mind are as follows. I will see if I can think of more:

I did have some colourful exchanges with User:Everyme (then Dorftrottel) in early 2008, mainly due to inclusionist/deletionist discussions which got (as usual) heated. [3], [4] among some other banter. He then set up his own [[5]], to which I tried to clarify what he wanted give a measured down-to-earth opinion followed by a trout and some encouraging words. Anyway, a combination of humour and encouragement seemed to break the ice (or fire if you will), and I did help fix some things and things were rather warmer later. Here is someone who does have alot to contribute and I have attempted to steer in the right direction. Unfortunately the story doesn't have a happy ending currently as he is blocked. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An older example was User:Spawn Man, who after a series of exchanges had this on his talk page as he threatened to quit. I steered things in the right direction and he stuck around for another year or more and a few more Featured Articles.

In any case, conflict resolution I have done in my line of work (identifying common goals etc.), as well as examination of human behaviour, so I am no stranger to it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Marskell[edit]

Do you want this? Cas, you're one of the most consistently amicable and even-tempered editors around and your mainspace contributions are massive. Being an arb necessarily involves contentious decisions, unfounded slander, and copious time wasted over talk page and e-mail junk. Are you sure personally that this is the direction you want to take your Wikipedia hobby? Marskell (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I potentially have a lot to offer. I am curious, and I think I can make a difference. ;) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Pixelface[edit]

I am asking all candidates the following additional questions:

How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
Not exactly sure on this one just yet, but it is something I will be looking at. For morale of the project (and the benefit of arbs), there should be enough leeway in terms of time expended so that arbs engage in other areas of WP, such as article writing, rather than be restricted to the often adversarial and difficult environment of WP:RFARB and that cases get handled in a timely manner. NYB noted that things had quietened down, so if elected I will be able to more get a handle on this one. In short, I am open to the idea of expansion.
How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
If there is enough leeway and people don't burn out, then three years is ok.
What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Wikipedia:Arbitration policy?
Do you think it is a requirement that subjects must be "notable" in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about them? If so, how does one determine if a subject is "notable"?
My criteria for notability are much softer/broader than the current consensus, mainly in that I do believe it is inherited to some extent. I have no problem with many of the expansion articles in pop culture, role playing, anime etc. However, as a volunteer, I did get sick of the trench warfare at AfD and also conceded that my views were not consistent with consensus or guidelines, and so I have opted out for more rewarding work. It will have to be nutted out at some point. My main criteria in proposing an article for deletion is when it is a hoax, or the article's very existence is an artificial construct which is misleading. I am also concerned as being familiar with film and TV literature I know there is plenty of sourcing out there available for much material including a large number of individual TV episodes etc.
Do you think the statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (which appears on the WMF's donation page) conflicts with the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Why or why not?
Yes I can see the discrepancy. The guideline is problematic as there has been much latitude in how it has been interpreted at AfD (as have notability guidelines in general). Personally, I have found enough to work on without concentrating on marginal material which can get wiped easily. Life's too short.
Imagine a situation where an editor consistently nominates 50 articles from the same category for deletion every day with a nearly identical reason for deletion. Other editors object to this, and several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, but no user RFC is filed. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
Considering the following scenario: An editor nominates all 17,000+ articles in Category:Asteroids for deletion at once and bundles them in a single AFD, with the reason for deletion "Asteroidcruft." The AFD is closed early by an admin, and the admin tells the editor not to bundle so many articles together in a single AFD. The next day, the editor nominates 200 asteroid articles for deletion using an automated tool, with the reason for deletion for each being "Asteroidcruft." A second editor, who is a member of WikiProject Astronomical objects, is checking their watchlist and sees many asteroid articles being nominated for deletion. The WikiProject member asks the first editor on the first editor's talk page to please stop nominating asteroid articles for deletion. The first editor tells the WikiProject member that he will not stop until every asteroid article is deleted from Wikipedia. The WikiProject member starts a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the situation, and later starts a thread at WT:ASTRO about the ANI thread. WikiProject members show up to the AFDs and argue to keep in all of them. At the ANI thread, several WikiProject members and several editors feel that the first editor is being disruptive. A second admin blocks the first editor for disruption, but asks for a review of the block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. At AN, several admins think the first editor is being disruptive, but several admins agree with what the first editor is doing, and several editors express their disdain for the WikiProject in general. A third admin unblocks the first editor, and the first editor continues to nominate 200 asteroid articles for deletion every day. Several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, some initiated by members of WikiProject Astronomical objects, some initiated by editors, but no user RFC is filed on the first editor. The first editor never comments at AN/I, but replies again and again on their user talk page that they feel that Wikipedia should not have any articles on individual asteroids. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
Clearly a conduct issue; a foundation of WP is the collaborative editing environment, which this clearly isn't. Though I'd be inclined to accept it, I am aware of the time involved in the case we were both involved in (TV episodes 2), and how the interpretation of consensus, policy, and what consitutes tendentious or disruptive editing mean that there were so many variables to render a solution almost impossible (sigh) More later Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, did you not notice that Pixelface had noted there had been no user-conduct RfC (in this hypothetical situation), or do you not consider such an RfC necessary for an ArbCom case to be accepted? Also, would you not consider recusing, considering your public views on editors such as these? seresin ( ¡? ) 06:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed that bit. Yes, an RfC is the first step. Yes, I would take off my arb-hat and put on my statement-by-x-hat, and sit it out Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a non-profit wiki and Wikia is a for-profit wiki and both were founded in part by Jimbo Wales. Do you think Wikipedia editors should be required to publicly disclose if they are employees/shareholders/editors of Wikia? Do you think Jimbo Wales has the power to make them do so? Do you think the arbitration committee has the power to make them do so?
Yes I think it is desirable and prudent as there could be a COI here. I will have to look into parts two and three, my guess would be "yes", and "no" offhand. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from S. Dean Jameson[edit]

I'm asking this question of every candidate I'm considering supporting. I'm not sure if I've waited too long to ask it or not. If I have, please feel free to revert me, and I can ask it on your talk page. Here it is: do you feel the administrative actions of an arbitrator (either current or former) should be treated differently than those of a regular administrator? In particular, if an arbitrator blocks a user or protects a page in support of an arbitration enforcement, should a person overturning such an action be treated differently than a person who might overturn a similar action from a regular administrator?

No. Admin actions are admin actions, whether done by an arbitrator or not. The action should be logged at the appropriate page (or discussed first if the particular case calls for it) and judged on its merits.

Good luck with your run! ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Marlith[edit]

What would you want to see Wikipedia grow into in the next five years? Marlith (Talk) 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehehe. With FAs and GAs, one can really get a feel for just how good it could be. There is a golden opportunity for general upgrading of the quality of the 'pedia and for experts to get involved...as long as some of the more risky or troublesome areas are addressed. These include BLPs, and editors who have difficulty working in a collaobrative environment. I may add more to this

Questions from Tony1[edit]

My good wishes for your candidature, Cas. I'm asking these questions of those I consider the best candidates.

What is your attitude to the notion of introducing commercial advertising on WP?
I would sincerely hope that the fundraising efforts and structure of WMF render this option permanently avoidable. I have grave concerns over (1) direct effects of advertising certain products (imagine seeing Coca-cola advert next to an article on Pepsi, and (2) more complex financial arrangements; at what point generous payments for adverts becomes donations becomes influential on content. I am a doctor and there are plenty of issues with this with drug advertising in my own profession. The 'pedia must be seen to be impartial, as well as endeavouring to the best of its ability to be impartial. Ultimately, this is a challenge for the expansion of the project to manage it successfully so this issue does not eventuate. However, not being a businessperson or familiar with the nuts and bolts of the costs of maintenance of the project, I cannot offer advice on how to avoid it.
Many users believe that the current "official" processes for ensuring that administrators adhere to the policy requirements of their behaviour—particularly the use of blocking—are inadequate. What is your attitude towards the reform of those processes so that they avoid the accusation that admins judge the behaviour of admins?
Currently there are two theoretical avenues - Arbcom and RfC, where an admin conduct can be (directly or indirectly) reviewed. Now to date, the message from arbcom was that these were sufficient and that Arbcom did have the time to deal with these. I am not so sure that is the case as there has been concern raised over the length of time taken to review cases. I note Newyorkbrad has proposed turnaround times, so I guess once I get there I can look at the workload more fully. I do think RfC is underutilised, to tell the truth. I am keeping track of your adminwatch proposal too.
Some of the policy tenets embedded in the policy page WP:Administrators are cast in terms that may require ArbCom's interpretion during your term. Can you give us an idea of how you'd approach the interpretation of this potential exception from the critical policy that admins avoid conflict of interest in their role? The text in question is green and includes a commented-out section. The hypothetical case you face as a member of ArbCom would involve a claim that an admin who has not followed the putative "best practice" has breached the WP:UNINVOLVED policy by themselves blocking a user with whom they've had a negative interaction on the talk page of the same article several months before.

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

There is some ambiguity there - I think it needs to be spelt out why it is pragmatic to err on the side of caution WRT to COI - i.e. being called on it. This really needs to be more strongly worded.

Tony (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Awadewit[edit]

You answered above to Rspeer that you are a Kuhnian, that "the ultimate 'truth' of an object can never be known, we know and measure all things by various paradigms and means of observation - all are estimates according to one paradigm or another". How far do you take this philosophy? To decide arbitration cases, for example, arbitrators usually decide what narrative of events is most accurate - what is most "truthful". However, if you believe that truth can never be known, how will you decide cases? What will your method be? In essence, how can you ever come to consensus with those who use other "paradigms" in the Kuhnian sense? Awadewit (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh heck, I meant this WRT science and the way we measure knowledge WRT content. When it comes to events in a case WRT user conduct or conflicts, the analysis is often alot more simple i.e. single event timeline with two (or more) narratives and figure which is closer to the truth.... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Slrubenstein[edit]

In a recent ArbCom case, a project page was created with an unprotected talk page. Later in the process, the talk was archived - in effect, the page was blanked - and the page protected, foreclosing any further discussion (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive178#ArbCom talk pages). Looking towards the future, what policy would you propose concerning the purpose of talk pages, the protection of talk pages so as to prevent talk, or the blanking of talk pages by ArbCom (or, how would you handle similar situations in the future)?
Do you find the word "troll" useful in describing a certain kind of problem at Wikipedia? Is labeling a user a "troll" always a personal attack? If the term is useful, how, in your experience, does one recognize a troll? What is the appropriate response? Does ArbCom have a role?
Certainly using it as a noun is unhelpful. Comments should always refer to a behaviour rather than an editor. As a verb? I'd be inclined not to in arb cases, as it is somewhat nebulous and pejorative, and tends to escalate rather than defuse situations. In general, there are more specific phrases for all behaviours included in trolling. More later.
Should WP:DE be made a policy? Why/why not?
The ultimate goal of all policies etc. is the writing of a reliable sourced encyclopedia. I think this almost needs to be stated as point 1 of every arb case as this is the reason we're all here, and arbcom's role is in the review of conduct and dipute resolution which impedes the growth of the 'pedia. Now, obviously one needs an editing community which knows they can edit in safety and hence the morale is essential to growth as well. Other policies, such as civility, then must relate to this; in the most part the tenets of civility, community morale and 'pedia growth lie in the same direction. it is when there are discrepancies (eg Raul's civil POV pushing etc.) that we get into murkier waters. I do think that subsuming civility, trolling, baiting and tendentious editing into a broader discussion on disruptive edtiing is the next step. What we are talking about is editing which gratuitously impacts upon the morale and mood of the community and editors, whether by incivility or by baiting editors who may already be angry or upset, or forum shopping or stalking or whatever. Hwoever, this will be very tricky, and I have run into trouble advocating certain types of editing patterns as tendentious (see below)

Some people have claimed that a hierarchy, or hierarchies, of authority are developing at Wikipedia. Do you agree? If so, do you consider this a necessary feature of the community, or a problem for the community? More specifically, in what ways do you see members of ArbCom as leaders or as servants of the community?
Yes! I feel that morale improves the more we make WP a 'level playing field' for all. Obviously we cannot do this totally but there are ways that we can improve things. I feel arbs should have a workload light enough so that they can engage actively in article writing and the broader community rather than being so busy that they are restricted (time wise) to discussion on rather sober and at times negative and confrontational arb cases. All mucking in together would be a good thing. I did try to show a certain type of edting I thought was tendentious --> here (let me know if you can follow the reasoning)

ArbCom was originally formed to be the ultimate stage of resolving edit conflicts at articles. Since then, its mission has expanded. Do you believe it has expanded to reach the appropriate limit of its powers? If you believe that its mission has not expanded enough, or has expanded too much, please provide specifics and explain how you would deal with this.

Slrubenstein | Talk 06:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky and depends on what WMF see as their role WRT issues such as stalking and other behaviour. WP is much bigger with a longer list of banned users and much higher stakes WRT profile and getting one's POV across, thus we have seen all sorts of parties with vested interests trying to modify content. The focus has shifted to be more on user conduct as well. At times, the more formalised arbitration process is necessary for the pedia to grow and remain impartial and reliable in both these areas. I am just getting a feel for all this and may add more as I think of it.

Final question from Majorly[edit]

It's been a long month or so, but elections are almost over, and unless things change drastically over the next 36 hours, it looks like you're one of the winners! Have a look at the other top six or seven candidates, and the current arbitrators. Do you still feel you can work with these people, potentially for the next three years? Do you still think you will be able to handle the workload? And most importantly, will you still be able to contribute to the encyclopedia? Thanks, Majorly ^talk 16:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Yeah I can work with them... Risker has one or two mainspace chores for me; I think I will be able to still write FAs and get about the place, and if not, I will look into things so I can. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]