Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:58, 15 November 2008

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

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

Question from Ultraexactzz

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?
Fairness Given that disputes are inevitable due to human nature, an Arbitrator should be fair in his decisions and on the personal side have the highest integrity.

Questions from Giggy

a/s/l?
It's no secret that I'm male and older than most wiki users. I live on the US East Coast.
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.
Wiki is a very big place. There is room for all who help build the encyclopedia, which requires both mainspace and project space. While there interests are different, they should be treated equally. I know that some feel arbcom has been too lenient with some admins, but to that I'll say they've been too lenient with disruptive editors in general.
What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
WP:BANNED does not allow editing by banned users. Period. By circumventing that, socking to get around that makes a mockery of our process and is a slap in the face to those who the banned user harmed, which is the whole community and the encyclopedia itself. Allowing this behavior is just asking for controversy. By applying this policy as it was meant to be avoids certain wiki drama and prevents the banned user from having only his good side seen in the spotlight. If an editor in good standing wants to reinstate those edits, that's okay, but allowing editing by banned users, all of whom have been given multiple chances before being banned, makes a mockery of our policy on banning. I'm all for a second chance--if the banned user wants to edit again, he should request reinstatement of privileges. It's very similar to allowing a blocked editor to edit.
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.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways_2. This was the second time this had been to arbcom and the decision was extremely weak, basically asking editors to cooperate. If arbcom takes a case, they should be willing to make a decision that's more than encouraging consensus seeking. I'd have sanctioned some editors on both sides. It also took way too long to decide (see Rschen's question on this).
Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
Pick any of the 17 featured items I've been a significant contributor to. Especially William Hanna and Joseph Barbera because few FAs exist on animation and I think of them as a pair.
Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
No. I simply feel it would not be appropriate.

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

Questions from Sarcasticidealist

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

To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?
Policy should be guide, but flexible when circumstances warrant it, ie, when following it doesn't make sense. This is the purpose of WP:IAR. Naturally, people will disagree about what those circumstances are so the reason therefore needs to be sound and justified. Modification should be via community consensus, not for convenience.
What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
While I'm not on the committee, it is my understanding that there is a an email list with former arbs and one for current arbs only. I feel this is fine as long as the one with former arbs, which is the one we call can send emails to, does not include former arbs who left under a cloud. This allows the former arbs, who have experience with arb matters, to provide valued input. Since they obviously have the trust of the community, or they wouldn't have ever been elected, I don't see this as a problem. Having the current arb only list allows the arbs to privately discuss the most sensitive matters.
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?
Many admins do not participate in recall, although they agree to its principles, because of the potential for vindictive recall requests (see answer to Maxim's 2nd question). Given the very high level of emotion present in and adversarial nature of RFARs, I think this is not a wise choice. I would resign if I lost the support of the community and I think most, probably all arbs, have the integrity to do so.

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

Questions from Celarnor

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")?
That it would extend articles or topics involved in the case, but that generally non-parties will not be specifically sanctioned. The committee needs flexibility to handle situations but must delicating balance it with the rights of all users and needs of the encyclopedia.
What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
The one most obvious and important to me is integrity (see answer to Ultraexactzz). This encompass behavior, honesty, fairness, forthrightness, and avoiding even a hint of impropriety. Those upon whom the community has entrusted additional duties, such as admin, crats, CUs, arbs, and oversighters must be held to a higher standard. Doing so is to the betterment of the community, its users, and the encyclopedia.

Question from LessHeard vanU

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

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]
Arbcom needs a mechanism to deal quickly with desysop cases; the nature of which does not fit into lengthy arb cases. Two of the changes I feel should be seriously considered are subcommittees for ban appeals and a dedicated process for desysops.

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

Question from Carnildo

How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
About 20.

Question from WilyD

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:

A. 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?

These are very similar questions but I will deal with them separately. Yes, admins can at times be deserving of a block over regular editing issues. I have only once had to block an admin and it was concerning disruption on an arb case. Myself and several others talked to the admin first but the admin would not desist. So yes, it can happen and be justified. I do not feel admins deserve special consideration in such a case. I will say that I’ve found most admins open and amenable to discussion if you approach them first and try to commence dialog.

B. 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?

Yes, same basic reason as first question. Admins have gone rogue in the past and if the situation warrants, they should be blocked—a series of bad blocks and no response to concerns is one example. While admins can unblock themselves, I’m sure the community and any arb would not look favorably upon them if they did so.

Questions from PhilKnight

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]
There are certain Scouting articles I'd recuse from - the ones I've heavily edited, but I don't see a need to automatically recuse from all Scouting articles. There is a very small number of editors I'd recuse from, but I think it is not appropriate to name them in this forum.
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?
Assuming, as you imply, that the first editor was actually pushing that POV as opposed to academically discussing it, I'd talk to the blocking admin and probably unblock the second user with a stern advisory that because someone is a spade doesn't mean it's wise to call them a spade.

Questions from Thatcher

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

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

This call is the one most likely to stop the vandaliam and swiftly so. The short hiatus could have been for any number of reasons, so that is not clear cut. I think this is a good call, neither right nor wrong. I recently had a similar case when I ran a CU check and contacted the admin offline and that took care of the situation, so I'd strongly suggest contacting the admin privately first-it could even be done without pointing the finger at him and s/he'd for sure get the point if he was guilty of this vandalism. The company IT security staff would be interested in this, I had a case this week of that and referred the company to the WMF lawyer, which the lawyer was grateful for.

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.

While the checkuser may be familiar with that topic, that does not mitigate the need to maintain admin/checkuser integrity. He should avoid even the appearance of impropriety and possible bias on his part and contact another CU and ask that CU to run the check. His familiarity with the topic would be put to good use in providing the evidence needed to show a CU check is warranted.

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?

While wikipedia can not directly control off wiki actions, this particular off wiki behavior is an indication of the user's character and while the case should not be decided solely on that point, it should be given due consideration. WP:BANNED clearly states a ban applies to the person not the account(s) and that the banned user is not welcome to edit wiki at all and hence the Smythe account could have and should have been blocked already. Here, the offwiki actions should cease before the user is unbanned. The banned user should request he be unbanned through standard means and show evidence s/he is truly reformed before being allowed to return to editing. A formal ban would not have been made without chances for reform already being made and without just cause.

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?

There is another factor that would likely be at play here in a real case--the split delaying the decision so long it does no one any good. A middle decision would likely please no one either, nor would a decision all on one side or the other. Arbcom should not post a proposed decision until there is general agreement among them that it will be accepted. I feel this way as I feel it is important for arbcom to present a unified front to the community, looking like they can't decide a case makes them look ineffective. In this scenario a likely way to resolve it is for each side to compromise on a point so a sound and effective decision can be made.

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?

I think it's important for all editors, not just arbs, to avoid burnout and take breaks as needed. If I decide to skip a case, I'd let my fellow arbs and the clerks know. If I miss something in the email list or disagree with a decision that I'd not participated in, I might voice my opinion to my fellow arbs (if elected) but I would not do so onwiki except in exceptional circumstances. I like to work on articles very much but there is no doubt my time for that would be curtailed and I'd need to try to avoid any dispute on articles I'm involved in.

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?

No I have not publicly disclosed that info, although some people do know my RL name. I would not care much if that were known-so it would not impact my arbcom work, but I'd prefer it not to be known., I of course would object if that info were used to harass me.

Questions from Newyorkbrad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I feel well prepared to be an arb due to my background as an arb clerk and admin work in SSP/CU cases. I am ready and willing to help in all these areas but will probably concentrate on A, B, C, and F (I’m already a CU and know how to use the tool).

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?

I really like your changes here Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating, and posted to that effect on itʼs talk page on 11 Oct. I especially like the posting of all voting, use of clear English, reliance on wiki practice and policy, and overall clearing up of matters. I agree full RFAR cases need to be heard by the whole committee but somethings like ban appeals could be farmed out to a subcommittee. I like your proposal more than FT2ʼs.

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.

I think it's neither good nor bad, it is simply what it is. Hopefully it means there is more harmonious editing going on though. I've also noticed a trend in the last year or so that there are fewer cases, but the ones that do arise are more complex. Perhaps this is a partial explanation of why cases take longer, but I am pretty sure it's not the main reason. I also think that this year the arb's standard/bar for what constitutes a case they'll accept seems to have risen. It could also mean that the community is better at handling issues before they get to RFAR. A lot of this could, however, be coincidence as there is no way to predict what cases come to RFAR nor how frequently they come.

Questions from Mailer Diablo

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

Flagged revisions. This is a personal opinion and not something arbcom could do on its own. See answers to Treasury Tag's questions for more.

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

Arbcom needs the tools to effectively and swiftly handle cases that make it to arbcom but it should not make policy; including having the ability to handle a problem with a policy until community consensus has a permanent fix.

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

Wiki is Internet based and its users will make liberal use of other Internet tools. This will never change. Communication via IRC and other means is inevitable. If we were meant to only use talk pages to communicate, we wouldn’t have wiki email capability. The problem is when these tools are used for canvassing, back stabbing, etc. The tools aren’t the problem, it’s the way they sometimes get used. Personally, I could care less what others say about me off wiki. While IRC is an off-wiki venue, like it or not, Jimbo and arbcom have asserted authority over IRC in the past—probably because IRC has become so problematic. Ever wonder why they haven’t done so with Skype, though they did with Wikipedia Review via the Provoubiac and desysopping Everyking cases?

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?

All new arbs have the best of intentions, but then reality hits them on day one. Therefore, I will not promise “I will do XYZ”, but rather “I will do my best to do XYZ”. Everyone wants to make arbcom faster but so far everyone has failed. If elected, I’ll probably figure out better why on day one. It generally easier to make smaller changes rather than one big one to a process. I support Brads proposals (see his question section) and I think my track record on wiki shows I’ll do my best to do what I say I’ll do.

Questions from Rschen7754

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

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

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
Sad. Few, if any cases should take 3 months--which happened all too often this year, especially not one so relatively easy as this one. While there were some difficult cases going on at the same time as this one, I can not see that as an excuse to sideline this case, which is the impression I get here.
a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
WikiProjects are an excellent way for users with interest and expertise in a topic to come together to improve articles in that topic. This does not give them extra power nor does it put them above wiki policies, which they still need to abide by. The project members still need to seek and abide by community consensus.
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)
No, see answer to preceding question. While the child project may be within the scope of the parent project, the parent project does not have any special authority over it, and vice versa. Users in the parent and child project(s) should work together to find common standards that will lead to higher quality articles.
Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
While WP:CANVASS does not specify the form of canvassing, ie, it covers just about everything, it does allow for neutrally worded friendly notices. For example, I've found that if a WikiProject posts a note akin to "Article XYZ has an ongoing AFD", the community is generally accepting of that. It should be noted that Jimbo and Arbcom have asserted authority over IRC in the past.
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?
If the edits are in good faith, more tolerance and attempts to work with the editor are in order as opposed to a case of pure vandalism. Protective measures are warranted in the case of a good faith who is unresponsive to community concerns and is a overall negative to the encyclopedia. In my experience a good faith editor will genuinely try to improve.
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?
This is disruptive nonetheless and hence a problem. Several attempts should be made to work with this editor and if everything fails, then blocks are in order as a last resort.
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?
"Intelligence" leapt out at me here. Perhaps "capacity" would be better usage. The user should be talked to in a calm and polite manner and worked with, but if that fails, point out this project may not be the best use of their time.
a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
I think it highly unlikely 5/6/7 would lead to a ban, but I guess it's possible. A ban is justified when a user is a significant net negative to the project and the community's patience in working with them is exhausted. To make a ban stick, the community consensus should be very strong. If even one admin is willing to unblock a banned editor, the ban probably won't stick.
(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?
See my opening candidate statement where I talk about ethnic warring and POV pushing. This is the single biggest problem on Wikipedia right now and I get a strong sense from the community that the general community is extremely weary of users that cause these problems. This issues permeates all over the project, making things very difficult for us all, to the point that multiple arbcom cases have tried to deal with it. This problem is exceedingly difficult to deal with as users on both sides of each of these disputes are fervent in their beliefs and that anything that does not reflect that is perceived by them as wrong and must be changed. In the case of the many wiki ethnic wars, this problem is exacerbated by the fact that the ethnic dispute has been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years and wiki is a modern forum for the dispute to be carried forward.

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

Questions from Maxim

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 community holds admins to a higher standard, and rightfully so. Wheel-warring in virtually all cases should result in 1) a very stern admonishment and advisory that further such actions will result in desysop or 2) an outright desysop. Circumstances will vary from case to case.
What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
Here it's important to keep in mind that any admin who tries to enforce policy is going to tick people off. It is important that admins feel able to act in accordance with policy without having to worry about unfounded accusations against them. Arbcom serves an important role in this regard as it's members are usually experienced admins who have taken their share of flak and hence can sort valid complaints against admins from unfounded ones. Alternative panels are worth expoloring for this role to support this arb committee.
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)?
Adminbot approval was discussed at length before BRfA was implemented for this, which I played a minor role in. I fully support all bots, including admin bots, being required to get BAG approval and I've been helping BAG accomplish that task. I think bots are fine as long as the code is well written, it has BAG approval, and the bot operator is quickly receptive and responsive if that bot runs into problems.

Questions from rootology

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

Questions:

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

As there were only a couple of root causes to all that, I can see why they did it. And while the case was handled in an atrociously slow manner, how much that was a cause of the slowness will probably never be known.

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?

That arb said he was uncomfortable with Brad’s “formulation” of that finding, not that he found those users not valued. Then that arb went on to say those editors had been in too many vexatious incidents for him to support that finding. From that I think it’s too much of a leap to claim partiality by that arb; we should not read too much into it. In general, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, you best know if you’re impartial, not someone trying to deduce your thoughts and feelings. To answer your other question, if an arb can not be impartial, s/he should recuse.

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?

I think the mandate/guidelines/constitution should come from the community. The arbs should always remember that. But lets keep in mind that the arbs are the ones who work with this every day. So, to summarize, the community should set the principles and policies and arbcom should set the procedures and process.

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’ve wondered why Jimbo keeps this reserve power on the English Wiki and not others. Probably some combination of it’s his native language, the biggest wiki, and there are too many wikis on WMF for him to worry about at that level. I’m not opposed to the idea of direct elections but that’d be a paradigm shift that Jimbo and the community would have to work through.

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?

Arbs should most definitely have a clear mandate from the community to serve on the Committee. Immense trust is placed in them so they should have a clear majority of support. Jimbo has said that already and the election system pretty much ensures that. What would be interesting is, using this year as an example, 7 seats are open but less than 7 get a majority support vote. What would happen?

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?

All RFAR, clarification, and desyssop votes must be posted on wiki, unless privacy or similar concerns such as a pro-pedo block case make the wise choice otherwise.

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.

This is somewhat of a paradox. Arbcom came about as a result of Jimboʼs original authority over en wiki matters because it grew so big he didnʼt have time to deal with all the issues personally, yet the mandate/Constitution come from the user community. So Iʼd have to say a dual source for that as roots of Arbcomʼs authority. Everything else is subordinate to that. The arbs themselves serve the committee they are on. WMFʼs influence is mainly over legal and privacy issues the committee deals with.

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

Question from Davewild

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 think terms from 2-3 years are workable but the problem is many arbs burn out at the 2.5+ year point. The concern I have with 2 year terms is that with annual elections, half would be up for reelection every year. That may be a bit much. Which option I'd support would heavily weigh the community consensus.

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

Questions from roux

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

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

A2. This is a consensus-collaborative based project, which works best in a harmonious, cooperative environment. Being a rude, obnoxious, etc does not help that. Therefore, I support civility to that end. I strongly feel that doing good does not give one the right to be incivil or condescending to others. Basic human decency and respect for one another is what we need. Disagreements will arise, but we don’t need to encourage or allow being a jackass about it. Treat others as you’d treat your mother. Option A2 also had clear community support.

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

It's not so much that I oppose these, see response to 2a below.

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?

B3. This is more problematic as there are widely varying views on what is and isn’t considered civil, compounded by the fact some do feel that “he does good edits, so let him be a jerk”, which defeats the role purpose of civility rules. The community clearly views civility as important but is at the same time uncertain what to do about it. Given this and my personal view, I’d leave the civility rules in place and also recognize that civility could also be dealt with in some cases as disruptive and tendentious editing. I foresee no permanent solution to this problem as I doubt people will ever agree on what is and isn’t civil.

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

Questions from TreasuryTag

What is your opinion on the concept of flagged revisions, in particular: will it help to ease or reduce the sort of dispute that comes the way of the Arbitration Committee? Or is it irrelevant to the ArbCom's work? If this is near-identical to another question you have already answered please reference where on the page that question is. Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. Say arbcom does not decide content, so there would be no place for Arbcom to review edits, of course individual arbs could review them the same as any other "reviewer". I think it would probably reduce the number of cases go to RFAR slightly.
What is your opinion on the proposed abuse filter? Will it affect the ArbCom's work? If this is near-identical to another question you have already answered please reference where on the page that question is. Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. A lot of people spend time fighting vandalism that could be better spent on writing articles, mediating disputes, etc.

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)

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

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)?

Only if Jimbo had a really, really, really good reason for not appointing those who had more votes than I did. His explanation for overriding the community consensus would have to be very convincing.

Questions from Lar

Note: 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.

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.
(a) I don’t support opt in or out. A BLP subject is either notable or not notable.

(b) Default to delete in an AFD makes sense to me, it is in line with the “do no harm” provision of BLP.
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.
(a) BLP is there for two main reasons: common decency and legal reasons to protect WMF.

(b) Yes in this regard they have stepped into policy but I feel this is the one area that warrants that, largely for the reasons in item a. Let’s use a real case that happened here on en wiki. A singer, still alive and singing, had a medical urinary problem and had a problem with that onstage. Some editors put that in her article—come on, let’s have some common decency here. Some editors promptly removed it-Yeah.
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?
Yes it has outgrown it’s model from its early days and we need to rethink some things, including arbcom. This basically a growing process. Just how we need to change should be done by community consensus, but out model of governance needs a serious looking at.
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?
See answers to the first questions of Mailer Diablo and Treasury Tag questions, plus it’s harder for us to change because we’re so big.
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?

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?

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)

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?

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)
(combined answer) Wiki permits, even encourages, an avatar-like existence. It is a basic construct on WMF. This does not equate to secrecy, though it is similar. The problem with outing is that it can has led to harassment and even death of users. This is SERIOUS business. Stalkers of wiki users have been jailed too. Involuntary outing should be dealt with accordingly, which we can do if it is done on wiki. This is more problematic if the outing is offwiki. Action should follow serious disruption remedies, long blocks, bans, etc.
This answer has drawn some criticism on other discussion boards, and I share in the concerns raised by others. Specifically, could you please provide evidence for your claim that outing (I assume you refer to it in the WP context) has lead to deaths. Thank you. Giggy (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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?

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.

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

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.

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?
Partially answered with item 5. Wiki should warn users about the possibility of stalking and take steps to prevent it and help prosecute stalkers and be decisive in doing so. Such acts are hardly conducive to the collaborative environment WMF operates. Editors should realize what they do is open to any Internet user and act accordingly.
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?
See answer to Giggy’s 3rd question on blanket reverting.
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?

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?

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)?

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?

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? )
Constructive criticism is good. Criticism in hate or spite is bad for everyone. WikiReview has its good and bad points, some good ideas have come from it. However, it has more than its share of whiners. Personally I only look at it when someone gives me a link. Anyone participating in these offwiki sites that discuss should be aware of their potential pitfalls.
Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with meatball:VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
Yes indeed. I’ve said elsewhere on this page being civil or good does not entitle you to be rude and obnoxious. Permitting that breeds aggressive behavior and fills already overblown egos. Deal with the behavior, not the plumage on their user page.
What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
Blue, I find it calming.

Questions from Heimstern

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?
There are other areas just as harmful to the encyclopedia as ethnic wars. I am sensing that the community is really getting fed up with editors who over long periods of time can not work out their differences. Topic bans would be a good early attempt at these situations, but often these editors are focused on that topic, so they don’t always work. If they can’t constructively contribute elsewhere, then bans may be in order. But be advised many of these editors are expert sock masters and more CUs may be warranted. The ones who use dynamic IPs are especially problematic. These areas of wiki are getting to be an excessive drain on the encyclopedia.
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?
I disagree with those who say civility restrictions don’t work at all. I have seen them work. Your question has two facets: Those upon whom these restrictions don’t work—and the reason is they don’t care if they get blocked and users with differing views on what isn’t civil. For those for whom it doesn’t work, sterner measures would be warranted or topic bans if it’s a topic that gets them to act uncivil. As for differing views or what’s incivil, I see no workable solution to that, so I’m open to ideas. See my answer to roux’s question 1 also. It also relies on the common sense of the enforcing admin.

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
See answer to Iridescent’s question.
Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
See answer to Sarcasticidealist’s question 3

Questions from UninvitedCompany

Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
Article writing and admin work in SSP/AE/ANI etc
Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
College degree, US Navy, computer systems admin
Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
I have the global SUL account Rlevse for WMF, that's it. I don't use other public wikis
Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
A BLP issue on the Coker article. We both were fervent in out interpretation of BLP and eventually it worked out.
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?
only if you count Boy Scouts. I already said I'd recuse from those articles I was involved in heavily
Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
Scout leader
Have you publicly revealed your actual name and address? Do you plan to do so if elected? If not, how do you plan to respond to any threats you may receive to publicize this information?
No. No. Prob let them do it. I don't care too much about it but I'm not advertising it either
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?
My wife is User:JoJo. It's on our user pages.
Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
email, IRC, arb clerk and CU mailing lists.
What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee? Do they all carry equal weight?
The only constituency to serve is the community.
What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept? Refuse?
Accept behaviorial ones, admin abuse, long term disruption, etc. Refuse content disputes likely to be resolved within other WP:DR forums
How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
Depends. It's been done before so in some cases yes.
What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
Each should be tailored to the case. The hardest to enforce are ones where people are good at socking or don't care if they get blocked and thrive on the attention thereof. Different remedies affect different users differently.
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?
See answer to LhVU question.
Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most? Why?
Kirill and Brad. They write really good decisions. Other than that, they all do lots for wiki and take undue criticism and are underappreciated. Flo is especially underappreciated.
To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
Preponderance of evidence.
What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
Honestly, I've had little interaction with them and don't pay much attention to them, except a few emails with Jimbo on really bad disruptive editors and when I ID'd to Cary for CU.
To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
I haven't worked at OTRS, do not have an account. I submit tickets though. I support their efforts and thing what they do is good. Their work is critical.
Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
Of course not.

Questions from TomasBat

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?)

WP: Please do not bite the newcomers does not mean do what in the end will harm the encyclopedia.

Individual questions

Questions from MBisanz

How long have you been an editor of Wikipedia?
3 years, since Nov 2005
How many total edits do you have on Wikipedia? What is your % of edits to the article space?
Over 62,000, 31.64% mainspace
Are you an administrator? If so, how long have you been one?
Yes, since Feb 2007
Do you hold any other userrights or positions at the English Wikipedia? (crat, medcom, WPPJ, etc)
Checkuser and bureaucrat, work with the ScoutingWikiProject, arbitration committee clerk
Do you hold any userrights or other positions of trust at other WMF projects? Which ones?
Admin on WikiCommmons
Have you ever been named as a participant of a Request for Arbitration? If so, please link case(s).
No
Have you ever been blocked or subject to restrictions such as WP:RESTRICT, WP:BLPLOG, WP:AER, or WP:SANCTION? If so, please link to the relevant issue.
No
Have you ever been blocked or formally sanctioned at another WMF project? If so, please describe.
No
What is your best work at Wikipedia? (an article, list, image or content template)
I think my best work is with featured content. I have 12 successful Featured Article nominations and significantly contributed to an additional 3 for a total of 15; 1 successful Featured Portal nomination; and also been a significant contributor to one successful Featured List. I was a significant contributor to all 17 of these items.
If elected, would you request the Checkuser and/or Oversight userrights?
I have CU already and yes I'd request oversight as arbs deal with those types of issues frequently.
Please list any disclosed or undisclosed alternate or prior accounts you have had.
None.
What methods of off-wiki communication do you use to discuss Wikipedia related matters? (IRC, Skype, WR, Mailing Lists, blogs, etc) Please link to any publicly available forums you use.
IRC, email - including lists, and occassionaly Skype.
Do you have OTRS access? If so, which queues?
No OTRS access.
How do you resolve the apparent inconsistency between RFAR/MONGO and RFAR/Jim62sch as to off-site activities by users?
Both MONGO and Jim62sch do deal with harassment and off-wiki activity and on a cursory look they could be seen as contradictory but look closer and you will see that they aren’t. Jim62sch was decided 14.5 months after MONGO and in my view is a clarification/amplificiation/tweaking of the MONGO ruling. The linked MONGO ruling, principle #8, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Karma simply says that users who participate in off-wiki sites that are hypercritical of wiki can expect their activities on and off wiki to be closely monitored. The linked Jim62sch ruling, principle #4, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Conduct_outside_Wikipedia, does not say their activities can not be monitored, it says their off wiki activities are “generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanction”, which is not the same thing as the MONGO ruling. It goes on to say that in “extraordinary circumstances”, such as egregious disruption or real life or work harassment, they may be subject to Wikipedia sanctions.
What is your opinion on the new closed motions process?
Since I'm the one that created it, I naturally think it's great. I created that page as prior to its existence, there was no consistent place to archive RFAR clarifications that did not have an associated arb case.
Besides compromised accounts, under what circumstances would you support or initiate an emergency request for desysopping?
In addition to "compromised accounts", I would support emergency desyssopings in cases such as:
egregious abuse of admin actions and violation of the community trust placed in admins, such as the Robdurbar incident and CSCWEM incident: see this and this

extreme wheel warring, such as when the admin was told to stop and hasn’t

"an admin wheel warring over blocks or userrights, which has a more lasting and chilling effect than protections or deletions".
Currently, only Jimbo Wales and the Arbitration Committee are authorized to perform/request involuntarily desysop an administrator whose account has not been compromised. What is your view of community-based desysopping decisions?
One of the problems with arbcom is that they are usually overworked. The community entrusted crats to +sysop someone so I feel that crats can be entrusted to desysop someone in addition to arbcom retaining the power to do so. However, I would not support allowing one crat alone to do this. It should be at least 3 crats agreeing or a majority of those currently active (left side of WP:CRAT. This would free up arbcom to focus more on its core, arb cases. I donʼt think the community at large should handle desysops as too often good admins take heat because they work in difficult areas. Any admin that tries to enforce policy is bound to have some enemies. In the case of crat desysops, user should have the right to appeal to Jimbo/arbcom.
If you owned Wikipedia as the WMF currently does, what would you do to fix the BLP problem?
WP:BLP is historically one of the most problematic areas of Wikipedia. The special BLP enforcement policy that grew out of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes has only been invoked twice and the first instance resulted in a wheel war and another arbcase that should soon close. Views on BLP range from "include anything with a reliable source" to the strictest interpretations of the "do no harm" policy. To solve this, one has to look at the community consensus of where to fall within that spectrum given the trend in the Footnoted quotes case and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, it is clear at least which direction this should take. Common decency needs to be considered here. I won't mention the article, but recently a female singer with a urinary problem urinated on stage and someone put it in the article because it had a reliable source. It was quickly removed per BLP, which I totally agree with. We have to keep in mind that we are dealing with real living people here, not some avatar on the Internet.
In 2004, the Arbitration Committee referred issues to the Mediation Committee. However, as of recent, the Arbitration Committee has not referred issues to the Mediation Committee. Would you refer more content-based disputes to MedCom or continue the current practice?
Wikipedia is very different now compared to 2004. Medcom handles content disputes, which is not arbcom's purview in the first place. Recently arbcom hasn't referred RFAR applicants directly to medcom but they often refer them to the whole dispute resolution process, of which medcom is a part. I also think if medcom gets an case that is ready for RFAR and likely to be accepted, it can refer the case to RFAR, akin to the behavior issues that led to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2
In the past the Arbitration Committee has taken a checkered view of wheel wars, desysopping in some cases and not desysopping in others. What do you believe constitutes a wheel war which would result in a desysopping?
WP:WHEELWAR defines wheel warring as "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions — specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user; undeleting and redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting a page." It goes on to advise "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion." I feel there are two causes of wheel warring: 1) admins who reverse the action of another without obtaining consensus first and 2) varying arbcom remedies in wheel wars. Admins will continue to wheel war as long as they know they in all liklihood will not be desyssoped by arbcom. While not all cases will necessitate a desysop, arbcom needs to be swifter and firmer in this regard.
How involved must an administrator be to be unable to enforce policy on a user? Given that it is expected that all admins understand policy when they pass RFA, under what circumstances would you not desysop an administrator who was clearly involved with a user they blocked or an article they deleted/protected?
Not using your bit in a case you are involved in is a core principle of adminship. I always try to be very careful of not using my bit in disputes I'm involved in. I can not think of a case where a block by an involved in admin would be justified. I can think of removal of clear and obvious vandalism would be acceptable, such as when the other party inserts blatant profanity into an article and the involved admin removes it. When in doubt, the admin should err on the side of caution and maintaining their integrity and seek the assistance of neutral admins through the appropriate means. Only being involved in a situation does not make one "involved" as an editor. Admins who are involved as an editor should avoid administrative action in regard to it.
Besides the technical capabilities administrators have, the Arbitration Committee has granted administrators the rights to enforce certain general sanctions with regards to specific editors and articles. What is your view on these new non-technical privileges being considered part of the "administrative" function for purposes such as RfC, Recall, and RfAR?
Users are made admins because the community has placed their trust in them. This does mean it’s limited to use of a technical capability such as blocking someone. It includes sanctions such as topic bans. Use of these non technical powers is subject to the same standards of behavior and scrutiny as technical admin powers.
Current checkuser policy at the English Wikipedia prohibits checkusers from fulfilling "fishing" requests. However, global privacy policy does not prohibit such requests from being fulfilled, so long as personal information is not disclosed. Would you support the alteration of the en.wp policy to permit fishing requests?
I would agree to fishing in checkuser cases if there were sufficient grounds to expect a reasonable expectation of abusive behavior being found—sometimes ones instinct is all you have but there isn’t enough public evidence to prove it. However, it should be used with due discretion and a “fishing usage of checkuser” should have a second CU agree it should be run.
In 2006 the Arbitration Committee asked the community to address the issue of protecting children's privacy on Wikipedia. To this day there is still no policy on how to handle children's privacy on Wikipedia. What steps would you take to ensure children's privacy is protected under policy?
Children are our most precious resource and we are morally and legally bound to protect them. Users self-identifying as children may actually be children, pedophiles looking for children, or law enforcement personnel testing our policies. Whichever of those is in fact true, we should remove that private info, explain to the user why, and do so in a calm, rational manner. I think our admin and oversight policies are sufficient to handle these matters and this should be done so with discretion and in a non-antagonistic manner. Some education on the matter to the general community may be beneficial. I would also support attempting to make Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy a guide or {{infopage}}.
How do you resolve the apparent inconsistency between RFAR/LevelCheck and RFAR/Durova as to what may be considered justification for blocks of educated new users?
The LevelCheck case found that user to be very disruptive whereas in the Durova case found that there was insufficient cause for a block, off wiki evidence was never made public and review had to be made through arbcom though they had not endorsed the block. In my view, the cases are very different and not inconsistent at all. A new user being educated about wiki is only one of the many factors that justify a block for socking. While it is certainly possible such a user is a sock, it is also possible they utilize another WMF site, such as Commons, or another mediawiki (non-WMF) site such as Intellipedia. Such knowledge may well justify scrutiny but other evidence should be gathered and evaluated before blocking. Mere suspicion does not justify a block. SSP and the evidence of socking should be as public and transparent as privacy concerns allow.
Originally RfARs were named in the style of Party X v. Party Y in line with the idea of two groups in opposition to each other (eg. User:Guanaco versus User:Lir). Later it was changed to naming an individual user (eg. Husnock). Now cases get random names like Highways 2. What naming convention do you believe is the appropriate one for ArbCom to use in designating case names? under what circumstances should a case name be changed after opening, such as in RFAR/Zeraeph?
Having been an arbcom clerk for some time and the actual case clerk for Zeraeph, I have a familiarity with this topic. The whole purpose of not using the “A v. B” format is to reduce the adversarial and confrontational atmosphere around arb cases and I strongly support that. “A and B” is better, but “Article name edit war” is even better. The name must fit the case by being descriptive and be as neutral as possible. Zeraeph was renamed upon closing, not during the case, because the other main party was found not at fault and Zeraeph was banned for a year. A case name should certainly be neutral, non confrontational, not make judgements, and cause as little drama as possible.
A case is presented between two administrators who have repeatedly undone each other's administrative actions with regard to the deletion of an article. The basis for the deleting administrator's action was an OTRS ticket showing the article to be a copyright violation. In performing the deletion, the administrator clearly referenced the OTRS ticket number. Assuming the undeleting administrator did not have OTRS access, do you penalize him more or less for wheel warring? Do you penalize the deleting administrator for wheel warring?
Undeleting something that was clearly deleted because of an OTRS ticket is a serious matter fraught with legal perils not only for the undeleting admin but even more so for the Foundation. Not having OTRS access is no excuse. Both admins in this case are guilty of wheel warring. A post to WP:AN would be the first logical step here. The undeleting admin should most probably be desyssoped swiftly and the deleting admin admonished or desyssoped for perpetuating a wheel war.
To what extent do you believe policy on Wikipedia is or should be binding?
Policy should be binding, especially where legal issues, privacy, and copyright are involved. Policy cannot foresee every circumstance—this is one area where common sense comes into play. Policy should be modified by obtaining consensus, not by ignoring it. It should be applied fairly and equally to all users. One of the major problems with policy is that users, understandably, have differeing views on things such as what is or isn’t civil and what is or isn’t fair use. In such cases the policy should be clarified as much as possible and consensus reached in discussion about specific applications of that policy.

A quick one from AGK

You already have the CheckUser flag. If appointed, will you seek the OverSight flag also? AGK 22:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most arbs eventually get CheckUser and the OverSight flags. Consequently, if elected, I expect I'll get OverSight at some point, but it's not something I plan to seek right away. I initially would be more concerned with learning my new duties, if elected. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from FT2

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

1. There is clear agreement that all is not well, in all ways, at Arbcom. Many users standing will be hoping to change that, as many did last year. What aspects work well, and what are the core changes you feel would help change the ones that don't?

I’ve discussed this already in my statement and other answers, but as a summary I see three things arbcom should work to fix:

Transparency. All votes should be on wiki for RFAR/clarifications/desyssops. Reveal what can be revealed without violating laws or privacy.

Efficiency/speed. Things take way way too long. Everyone wants to fix this but everyone seems to fail. Possible fixes are deadlines on evidence submission and the straggling arbs who rarely and/or slowly vote. These seem the biggest hurdles on RFAR cases.

Stronger enforcement of policy, especially regarding disruptive editors. Weak decisions only please the disruptor, not the productive encyclopedia builders.

2. Ex-arbitrators and Jimbo are privy to various Arbcom dialogs. What impressions do you have regarding the nature and extent of their involvement in the sitting arbitrators' discussions? How do you imagine their activity looks, on the Committee's mailing list/s, and in particular when the topic is a controversial matter, one that ex-arbitrators may have views on, or some other significant matter?

I mentioned elsewhere that the experience, insight, and collective memory of ex arbs could be quite useful. I think there is a mail list that have access to and a mail list only current arbs can use. If the two lists are used so that the input of ex arbs and Jimbo is separated from current arb authority, I think that is fine. While Jimbo can override Arbcom he rarely does, if ever. I’m sure that is at least partly because he is so busy.

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

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

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

Arbs are here to serve the community, encyclopedia, and users. As long as I make my decisions with that in mind, in accordance with policy, what I feel is right, in line of maintaining integrity, I can sleep well at night. And if that offends some people, so be it. Arbs, admins, etc can never make everyone happy.

4. Seasoned and respected users appointed to Arbcom routinely believe they will not burn out. Yet, equally routinely, a proportion do (or become markedly less responsive over time, or less likely to keep pushing to reduce long standing issues). Why should users feel you stand a chance of lasting the course and remaining strongly involved in a year's time?

I will devote the same amount of time to wiki as I already do—which is a lot; it’s just a matter of what parts of wiki get my time. I will take breaks when needed.

5. Many disputes stem from poor following of communal norms (including policies), or norms that are problematic, insufficient, disputed or conflicting in the face of some new kind of issue. When standards lapse, or dispute arises due to such issues, how hard should Arbcom push the community in expressing the pursuit of higher standards or better consensus as a "need" rather than a "request"?

Arbs tend to be very experienced users and admins and often have bits in addition to +admin before they become arbs. The experience and there experience as arbs can be put to use outside the role Arbcom currently plays. Perhaps Arbcom could be more proactive in plugging in remedies in places where the problems you mention occur.

6. If appointed, what would you consider your personal sense of "your mandate" to be? (This is not asking what Arbitrators should do; rather it is asking what you see as your personal special agenda, or "matters and issues to especially focus on", out of all the areas of Arbitrator work and activities, as a Committee member.)

Serve the encyclopedia the best that I can. Also, here I’ll mention that I think en wiki has outgrown its clothes and needs a new set.

7. How will being on Arbcom affect your actions, or choices about how to act, in other capacities - as an editor, user, admin, or the like?

It would make me even more careful about getting into disputes as I may one day have to be a sitting arb on that case. If I did get too involved in such a situation, I would have to recuse if a RFAR did arise. Of course, I could still partake of non arb activities, writing articles, commenting on !votes, etc.

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)} 00:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you leave Wikipedia in a huff and then return?

In addition to this, would you recuse yourself in cases involving myself? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got very frustrated so I left but missed wiki and came back. I learned from the experience greatly. Wikibreaks are highly recommended for everyone when they need them. I would recuse from a case where you were a main participant, but that if you were only a side-party I would just recuse from voting on any remedies that would impact you. Scout's honor.

good response. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about civility and POV-pushing

What do you think about Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing? Can it be demonstrated to exist, and if so, how? Should it be punished, and if so, how harshly? Is it as big of a problem as people who are uncivil or no? ScienceApologist (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. But the issues raised here can often be dealt with from preexisting policies such as WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:SPA, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, etc. I agree WP:CIVIL covers overall behavior, not just impoliteness. Being civil does not give one the right to push a point beyond the bound of policies such as UNDUE. Nor does it give someone who is writing good articles the right to be rude. Such action would be very difficult to prove in an Arbcom situation because of the principle of WP:AGF; however, like all POV pushing, would be addressed firmly in the Arb-sphere. As far as incivilty v. the POV-pushing problem, those are separate animals and should be dealt with as such, not as one problem, even though they often intertwine. Both appear to be the sort of thing ArbCom will need to continue to address.

I don't really find this response to be adequate. There is some direct criticism and suggestions for the arbitration committee and the situations on the ground. Your claim that the issues can be dealt with from preexisting policies does not address the points raised on this page directly. Would you care to try again? Is there any part of that essay with which you disagree? If so, why? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an issue, but it is an essay describing a phenomenon, just like Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading graphs and Wikipedia:An uncivil environment is a poor environment are essays. I agree in concept with the page, but as an Arb would not enforce its remedies where community consensus, evidence, or other existing policies contravened it. Much of this essay is a sythesis of pre-existing policies. Like many essays it provides good common sense advice, but that advice must be taken in the context of each situation with the facts and circumstances of each particular case. For example, its point 4 about revert wars can be handled under disruption and WP:3RR. Three points further down the one about "dubious reliabilty" is covered by WP:RS. The first suggested remedy is covered by WP:SPA. The one below that is covered by WP:SOCK. I think the Homeopathy decision was a good one.

Question from Davewild

In your candidate statement you say "The transparency of the committee needs to be greater", however in your answer to Thatcher's 2nd question you have said "Arbcom should not post a proposed decision until there is general agreement among them that it will be accepted. I feel this way as I feel it is important for arbcom to present a unified front to the community". Do you feel these are compatible? Do you not feel that if there is a split in the committee between those who want stricter or milder sanctions the community should be aware (particularly if this split happens over several cases), and can then make decisions at the yearly elections whether those who are stricter or milder should be (re-)elected? Davewild (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think these are compatible. But I certainly need to clarify what I was talking about in both cases. When I said "The transparency of the committee needs to be greater" I was referring to cases such as when they vote to take an action and we don’t even know what the infraction or arb voting was. When privacy or other concerns dictate the deliberations can’t public, I see no why the community can’t get at least a digest version of the case, let’s say a desysop, so we should at least get something akin to “User:XYZ is desyssoped for multiple cases of socking” and they should also post who voted for/against/abstained/recused. This would not violate privacy, let us know the gist of the case, and tell us how they stand on it. This does not mean we need to know every gritty detail of their deliberations, which is more what I was referring to when I said “"Arbcom should not post a proposed decision until there is general agreement among them that it will be accepted. I feel this way as I feel it is important for arbcom to present a unified front to the community". It’s a waste of effort to post a PD that has no chance of getting accepted, ie, “general agreement” should be attained first. In cases of disagreement, alternate solutions could be presented. Voting should be public. A split in the committee and who the “enforcers” and “another chancers” are is relatively easy to discern by who writes what in the PDs and who does vote, doesn’t vote, or ignores various remedies. Significant splits in arbcom seem to have a way of becoming known via these and various other means so I think we know what we need to know at election time.

@@ Line 259: / Line 259: @@
 #: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)
 #::(combined answer) Wiki permits, even encourages, an avatar-like existence. It is a basic construct on WMF. This does not equate to secrecy, though it is similar. The problem with outing is that it can has led to harassment and even death of users. This is SERIOUS business. Stalkers of wiki users have been jailed too. Involuntary outing should be dealt with accordingly, which we can do if it is done on wiki. This is more problematic if the outing is offwiki. Action should follow serious disruption remedies, long blocks, bans, etc.
+#:::This answer has drawn some criticism on other discussion boards, and I share in the concerns raised by others. Specifically, could you please provide evidence for your claim that outing (I assume you refer to it in the WP context) has lead to deaths. Thank you. [[User:Giggy|Giggy]] ([[User talk:Giggy|talk]]) 00:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 #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?