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

A note on questions being posed to all candidates

Please be aware that if you cut-and-paste one or more questions that you are asking of all candidates, I'll answer those portions that I believe are relevant to my candidacy and which are not already addressed either in my statement or in answers to prior questions. If you believe I've omitted something relevant, I'll be happy to address a more individualized query either here or on my talk page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from UninvitedCompany

I'll start out by answering the obvious question about why I resigned and what's changed.

In 2003, when Jdforrester and I first suggested the idea of having an Arbitration Committee, my interest was mainly in setting up the process and getting it to work. After the first few cases were underway, I resigned. My comments at the time of my departure were chosen in light of the fact that I did not want to undermine what was then a fragile, fledgling institution.

With a series of personnel and process changes, the arbcom has become a more effective institution that is able to work through a case far more quickly than was once the case. With the advent of the arbcom clerks, the arbs no longer have as tiresome a chore in front of them in maintaining the case pages. And I have seen firsthand how important an effective arbcom is to Wikipedia. Delayed cases and poorly chosen decisions have a divisive effect on the community. I think that arbcom work is valuable and am willing to invest the time.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Brian New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding recusal, I would recuse myself from any case where I did not think I would be able to be impartial. If I recuse, I'm not going to participate at all in a case. No comments, no advocacy, no lobbying. I would always be open to the advice of other arbs and former arbs regarding recusal and would actively seek it out if in doubt.

In general I have been very willing to disagree privately with individual arbs and the arbcom as a whole and doubt that will change regardless of whether or not I rejoin the committee. While I'm not interested in making protest votes, I'm willing to stand my ground and share my reasoning publicly for those issues where I feel strongly.

The arb workload does vary. How many hours? I don't know. I spend a few hours' time a month just following what's being done. Serious participation would involve more than that. And yes, I have the time.

Transparency for arbcom decisionmaking is a tough call. There have been calls for greater transparency since the arbcom's establishment. I believe that the magnitude and importance of internal and side conversations (e.g. among just two or three arbs) are less than is generally believed. Most of the salient turning points in the decisionmaking are incorporated into the decision pages on the wiki. Perhaps a different organization or writing style on the decisions would help.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Newyorkbrad

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

It's a tough area because there has to be consensus for the process changes. To some extent the need for transparency and public input is at odds with a fast process, and any process that's put in place has to work for a wide variety of cases. There have been proposals in the past for assigning smaller numbers of arbs to particular cases, proposals for greater use of summary judgements, and proposals for reducing the workload by empowering regular users to a greater degree to deal with clear cases on their own. Broadly speaking, I would support any of these (though probably not all of them at once), though the details matter a great deal and have to be worked out. There are tough cases involving serious allegations against long-standing contributors where no shortcuts should be taken. I don't think that we would have wanted the arbcom to rush the NSLE or Pedophilia user box cases. In cases like that, every arb should see the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Most cases are less far-reaching and may not have to be handled the same way.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Fys

I will be asking the same three questions to every candidate.

1. 'Arbitration' is a process of dispute resolution. If the parties to an arbitration, after it has gone to the committee, manage to resolve the dispute or any part of it themselves, would you continue the case or that part of it? If so, why, and if not, why not?
2. What role do you believe private discussions between the parties and members of the committee should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases?
3. Take a look at Wikipedia:Probation. Under what circumstances should users who have not had any restrictions on their editing imposed, be removed from probation? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I note that you are presently under probation due to an arbcom remedy.

The answer to your first question would depend on the specifics of the case, such as whether there are other users affected, whether the behavior at issue affects the wider community, and so on. These are judgment calls. I have no comment on your particular situation.

Not sure what you're getting at about private discussions between the parties and members of the committee. Do you mean taking evidence in private? The arbcom trying to mediate disputes in private? Parties trying to lobby individual arbcom members? Parties trying to lobby the arbcom as a whole? Overall, there is a balance to maintain between transparency of process and maintaining an environment where people are willing to come forward and share their concerns freely without everything becoming a permanent part of the public record.

I generally dislike probation because I find that it rarely works. I have done some analysis of arbcom remedies, and in nearly all cases where probation is used, the party either quits editing, is banned, or ends up in front of the arbcom again. The table you yourself are maintaining at Wikipedia:Probation bears this out. The exceptions are mild cases where there is a good editor who has lost their cool. I have been struck for some time with how the arbcom carefully metes out equitable remedies - 5 months probation for this user, 3 months for that user - when the usual outcome is that they all just quit the project. To the extent that probation helps at all, it does so because it is perhaps more palatable to those users who are concerned about the overuse of bans. As such, the mechanics of probation don't matter much. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from User:Xaosflux

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

Both permissions are highly sensitive. Either allows viewing of data which, if disclosed indiscriminately, could cause irrepairable real-world harm. As such, they should be granted only to individuals whose judgment is strong and in whose discretion we place unconditional trust. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Wizardry Dragon

I have a few questions I wish to ask:

• You mention that you feel that the Arbitration Committee has been to lenient on trouble users.

1. How so?
2. Take a case you feel is a case in point. How would you have done things differently?
3. How would you deal with problem users in general, remembering to assume good faith?

• You have been on the Arbitration Committee in the past.

1. How did you find your experience as an Arbitrator?
2. What would you consider the defining, or most positive moment, as an Arbitrator?
3. What would you consider the low point, or least positive moment, as an Arbitrator?
4. What would you have done differently?

Thanks for your time, and good luck with the coming elections. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 18:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There are any number of cases where purported contributors engage in an ongoing pattern of civility violations, sock puppetry, revert warring, and POV editing while making few if any useful contributions. We tolerate way too much of that and I think the arbcom has in general looked for reasons to excuse such behavior -- the "other side" didn't follow the rules either, the proof isn't airtight, process wasn't followed quite right, the antisocial behavior of choice isn't specifically proscribed by policy, etc etc.

I don't believe that it would be wise to comment on a particular case. There are many examples.

Regarding problem users, I think that we've seen enough of these to be able to discern the difference between people who misunderstand our way of doing things and people who are here to disrupt or to use Wikipedia to further some agenda. I don't believe that the arbcom should be in the business of warning or putting on probation those users whose violations are deliberate or who have already received a legion of warnings. Problem users don't get better even with time, mediation, mentoring, and other expenditures of effort.

Regarding my prior experience as an arbiter, please remember that my involvement was very early, at a time when the arbcom was experimental and had only provisional support (or less) from many Wikipedians. I was involved for four or five months during which time we closed no more than four or five cases, if memory serves. I was among the initial members of the arbcom who were heavily involved in the creation of the arbcom and its procedures, and I am especially proud of that work. I believe we got the essentials right, and the ongoing presence and effectiveness of the arbcom testifies to that. It was a lot of work and there were plenty of mistakes that we were able to avoid. There isn't a lot that I would have done differently.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Part of why I asked about your previous experience is because it was at an early stage of ArbCom, as that interests me. This leads me to another couple questions:

1. What change(s) in ArbCom that has occurred with do you feel was the best? Why?
2. What do you feel you have to offer to the ArbCom in it's more established state?

Thanks for entertaining my incessant questioning. :) Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon _{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Originally, the arbcom was conceived as a pan-project, pan-language organization. I think it's a good thing that its role is now limited to ENWP and that other projects have their own structures. Also, some of the original arbiters were opposed to essentially all bans and blocks. Things are more balanced now.

As for what I can offer the arbcom, I have three more years of Wikipedia experience since I started my involvment, working on articles, watching content and policy evolve, seeing the rise of commons and the sister projects, closing RFA requests, dealing with otrs issues, and so on. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my questions. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon _{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 21:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo

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

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

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

One of the things I've said for a long time about Wikipedia is that the root of most policy disagreements is the huge variation in the nature of the editing experience depending on where a particular Wikipedian chooses to edit. Editors who work through quiet areas of, say, the biology articles are unlikely to encounter many problem users, let alone have the arbcom affect what they're doing. You can go about your editing day, improving and adding photographs to articles like tree frog without encountering anything more serious than light vandalism. Editors who follow WP:AN/I or who work on articles regarding current events, controversial figures or subjects, or Isreal and Palestine tend to think that incessant edit wars and POV pushing are tearing the project apart. The truth is somewhere in between.

Once in a while, though, the arbcom is called out from the more or less shadowy area of dealing with POV pushers, socks, trolls, and the more egregious judgment failures of the admin corps, and something with potentially divisive reprecussions like the pedophilia user box fiasco comes up. No matter what side you're on (if any), it's clear that any mishandling of cases like that will have far-reaching effects. That is why I would encourage Wikipedians to vote for arbiters whose judgment they trust, and who they believe will be able to articulate their reasoning in a way that will be respected by the community. Those things are more important than platforms on particular issues, especially in light of the fact that at least some of the open slots are for three-year terms.

My current pet policy initiative is replacement of the sock puppet policy with something based on a "one person, one username" policy, with necessary exceptions. The present policy leads to a lot of frustration because Wikipedians who are trying to deal with bad edits by sock puppets have to demonstrate that each sock puppet is abusive, and in most cases try to identify whose sock puppet it is. I don't know that this is important enough that I would implement it by fiat, even if I could, but it's something I wish the community would adopt.

I think that the arbcom is (and has been since its inception) an institution of integrity and transparency, and it is accountable to the project insofar as its members are elected. The individual arbs who I know and the committee as a whole have always been very sensitive to fairness and parity. There are certain malcontents who will never be satisfied with the project and its policies. Wikipedians who are the subject of adverse arbcom remedies are understandably quick to criticize the arbcom's impartiality. And there are people new to the project who criticize what they don't understand. But I don't see much well-founded criticism of the arbcom or its members on the grounds of integrity or transparency.

It's difficult to reconcile the various issues affecting evenhandedness and parity. Many of our most important policies are in tension if not outright contradictory. WP:IAR is an example. Other examples include the tension between our opposition to censorship and our policy against personal attacks. Or the idea that administrators are held to a higher standard, vis a vis our belief that those who make valuable contributions should be shown a degree of leniency. It is incredibly hard to deal with tough cases and still be fair at all times to all people.

A great deal is made of the transparency of the arbcom decisionmaking process. I think I am on fairly safe ground in saying that the side discussions and private discussions are not nearly as important as is generally believed. Most of the real decisionmaking takes place on the wiki. As I've noted elsewhere on this page, I think the style and wording of some of the arbcom opinions end up making the arbcom appear unnecessarily obtuse. This may be contributing to the perception of opacity.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)