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)

Questions 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)

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

Yes; please see my more detailed reply to AnonEMouse, below. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:08, 7 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 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 Israel 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)

4. There are previous controversies about the possibility of lobbying, partiality in clerks and its selection process that may compromise the integrity of the ArbCom process as a whole. (See clerk talk, Giano). What are your expectations of ArbCom clerks' and their influence (or lack thereof) in your own perspective?

I believe that, on the whole, the clerks have been a great asset to the arbcom and to the community as a whole. Most of the recent discussion of the clerk role has been related to User:Tony Sidaway, whose controversial nature long preceded his involvement as an arbcom clerk. I believe that clerks should be impartial, should quietly recuse themselves from matters where they are too involved to be impartial, and should refrain from making any statements that might be misinterpreted as being made on behalf of the arbcom. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I don't think that I want to change the role that humor has in the project culture. It's part of what draws people here, part of the charm of the place. On the other hand, humor does not excuse personal attacks, revert wars, or disruption. Once upon a time, User:MyRedDice made this edit which I found hilariously funny. It was reverted within seconds (as well it should have been) but links to the diff floated around for a while and we all got a chuckle out of it. Some April 1 pranks exceed the limits; some do not. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from jd2718

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

I suppose it depends on who is elected instead. My long involvment with Wikipedia and my ongoing interest in its structure as a community are fairly unique, although they're not the most important things I would bring to the committee. The important things -- like good judgment, valuing fair process, familiarity with Wikipedia, and a commitment to the project and the Foundation -- are shared by many if not most of the candidates. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from AnonEMouse

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

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

1. A current Arbcom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?
2. Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?
3. Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?
4. If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.
5. While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)
6. It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?
7. For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom?

AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that the arbcom has or should have a policy-setting role. One of the things that many people don't realize about Wikipedia policy is that substantially all the settled areas of policy were decided long ago, based to a greater degree on leadership from Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger than on consensus, and haven't changed significantly since then. Most of the purported policy changes are logical extensions of these, or codifications of things we've already done routinely for a long time, or compliance matters that we need for the WMF to operate the site in a lawful way.

The workshop comments you refer to with regard to the Giano decision reflect the opinions of individual arbiters and not the arbcom as a whole. The final decision reflects the facts: that RFA is consensus-based, and that the arbcom does not, in general, wish to review the decisions of the bureaucrats. In the unlikely event of clear abuse (like promotion of random people who had never gone through RFA), I am confident that the arbcom would be willing to review adminship promotions, and I would support that. I note that Ed Poor's bureaucratship was resigned, in part because of an arbcom proceeding. Reviewing the overall actions of a particular bureaucrat and determining whether they as a whole reflect the community's will is more within the remit of the arbcom than "overturning" a particular promotion.

I have stated many times that we should be more patient with strong contributors than we should with those who are not doing anything useful. That doesn't give license to strong contributors to act up or ignore the wishes of the community on an ongoing basis. What it means is that we are more willing to work with someone who makes 100 useful edits a day, one of which is unhelpful, than someone who makes 5 edits a day, all of which are unhelpful.

I don't think there's any sort of inherent tension that requires us to choose between administrators and content contributors. It's a false dichotomy in many ways. Both groups are needed and both are valuable. There is overlap in that there are many administrators who contribute large amounts of content. I think we should treat each group respectfully and avoid creating any sort of hierarchy.

I do not wish to comment on how I would vote on particular cases, past or future, so I will decline your suggestion to pick a case where I did not agree with the outcome. I have previously noted in general terms my feeling that remedies involving "probation" and "mentorship" are overused.

Fred has been among the hardest-working arbcom members for quite some time. If he did not write some of the decisions, they could well go unwritten. So, to the extent that there is a problem, it is that few of the current arbiters have the ability, time, and inclination to write such material. I think that the present structure and methodology of decisionmaking (the use of the worshop page, the division into sections, the arbs voting on each individual paragraph) is due for review. I would prefer to see more homogenous decisions, with concurring and minority opinions as necessary -- rather like we have at WP:RFC. The problem with the present system isn't that Fred writes most of the text. The problem is that it sometimes appears disjointed since each proposal must stand alone due to the voting on each one.

I like to write, and if elected plan to write a good deal.

When I was a past member of the arbcom, I was not an administrator, and didn't find that to be a problem. To the extent the content of deleted pages was a problem, people would email them to me. Then as now, the fact that there are qualified candidates for the arbcom that lack adminship speaks volumes about the shortcomings of the RFA process.

Regarding your bonus question, I think that we should be striving to make it easier for people to become admins. There is a difference between a difficult test or hurdle and a discerning one. Our goal at RFA should be discernment, not difficulty. We want to make it easy for the best candidates and difficult or impossible for the weak ones. RFA is unnecessarily difficult for good candidates. The arbcom elections are different in that there are a fixed number of openings, but the goal should still be discernment -- for the most qualified, most capable candidates, becoming an arbcom member should not be difficult at all. I think you missed the difficulty standard mainly because there are relatively few truly qualified people for the committee, who have an informed willingness to do the work. I note that many candidates are under the mistaken notion that this will be fun. The only thing that can carry people through a three-year rotation is an unwavering commitment to the goals of the project.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from John Reid

Q: 1. Who are you?

A: What is this, a scene from Myst? Existential questions aside, my name is Steve Dunlop.

Q: 2. Are you 13? Are you 18?

A: Neither. I'm 40.

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

A: One of the provisions of arbitration policy that is nearly forgotten is that the arbcom is supposed to consider the wishes of the community in deciding which cases to accept, where the community is able to reach a consensus. I believe this provision to be of particular importance where there is any doubt whether a case is within the arbcom's jurisdiction.

Question from Ragesoss

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

Opinions vary because some people place considerably more faith in a rational world and the efficacy of the scientific method than others. Some people believe that there is a cause for every effect and put great stock in their own powers of observation and analysis. Others consider that a small change in initial conditions may have unpredictable effects in a large dynamic system, or place their faith in beliefs that cannot be objectively proven to outsiders. The appropriateness of these approaches at Wikipedia varies depending on context. Science can explain a great deal, but it cannot explain everything. As with much else, wisdom lies in knowing the limitations of each discipline. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Badbilltucker

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

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

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

I believe I've touched on the matter of serving out the term elsewhere. Regarding your second question, our NPOV policy has long held that we give appropriate coverage to all points of view rather than trying to pick winners and losers. To the extent that the arbcom becomes involved in content disputes at all, I would expect that it would adhere to NPOV. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Sugaar

I liked quite a lot your statement that reads: I believe that strong, good-faith contributors should continue to be given every opportunity to mend their ways. However, at present the arbcom is too lenient with troublemakers, especially those whose contributions are weak. This is unfair to those Wikipedians who have to deal with troublemakers, who are targeted by them, and who share their editing interests.

I am pondering voting for you specifically for this item and also for your experience. Can you dwell more on this?

I am currently involved in a very difficult dispute in the White people article between what I see as ideologically motivated POV-pushers and wikilawyerists on one side, mostly new users, and a group of experienced and good-willed editors that, in my opinion, try to defend NPOV over anything, basically in the proper discussion page, on the other. It may end some day in the ArbCom (hope not). While I don't expect you to bring opinion in a case that has not yet gone beyond RFI (and inccidentally ANI), I'd like you to explain how would you focus a case like this in abstract. It seems it's already a difficult issue for involved administrators. I know it's a difficult question, so thanks in advance for your reply. --Sugaar 13:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to make a point of not commenting on the White people article situation but instead can comment a little more in the abstract.

There is a class of politicized general-interest articles that are extremely difficult to edit well. I continue to be amazed that the process works at all in some of these cases. Usually when I visit one of these sorts of articles and try to intervene as a disinterested admin, one of the first questions I ask myself is, "who are these editors?" And the extent and usefulness of their past contributions and the degree of reasonableness they exhibit in other discussions informs my actions. If someone is making trouble, they have a history of being unreasonable, and their past contributions are of doubtful utility, there is little point in continuing to tolerate them. I think the arbcom should give greater weight to this and give far less emphasis to reconstructing detailed timelines and seeking out those particularly damning edits indicative of bad faith or socks or wikilawyering.

As I've noted elsewhere, people who don't edit in these difficult articles don't usually realize how disruptive these editing patterns can be, and how frustrating it is for admins and other good editors who try to intervene. Anyone who tries to do good work in such articles is going to be accused of being a biased POV pusher, a rogue admin with no respect for process, an elitist who is undermining the goals of the project, an editor who gets their way because they have more friends, etc etc etc. I would like to see the overall tone of discussion improve from these lows and would like to see a relatively more professional environment take hold.

Now, on the other hand, the arbcom has been fairly careful not to let strong contributions excuse ongoing bad behavior. I think that's good, and I wouldn't want to change it.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply to my difficult question. I really liked it: it was serious, concerned and balanced. --Sugaar 13:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from Dakota

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

--Dakota 13:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would expect to scale back my participation in other areas but not to discontinue it. I try to make it a point to be responsive to reasonable requests, and don't think that would change. I do think that it is important for people involved in WMF matters or administration or arbcom to stay engaged with the community and continue to edit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from JzG

Open-mindedness and the ability to revise one's own position in response to new evidence seems to me to be an important factor in considering ArbCom cases. Can you please provide an example of a situation where your initial judgement of a situation turned out to be wrong, and show how you dealt with it? Guy (Help!) 13:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I always reserve the right to be smarter tomorrow than I am today. The number of times I have been wrong about something is legion. At Wikipedia it probably started when I made some of the perennial proposals at the village pump when I was a n00b. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Torinir

I'm asking these questions all applicants:

1) How would you handle a situation where an error of judgment has occured, especially if evidence is provided to confirm that the position is incorrect?

2) If a decision of yours, while technically a correct one, would knowingly be unpopular en masse, how would you present your decision?

3) Place each of these policies/guidelines listed in order of precedence (to you) starting with highest priority. There is really no right or wrong answer. I'm interested in seeing what you would normally look at first when assessing an article.

WP:V WP:BLP WP:NOT WP:NPOV WP:NOR WP:C WP:RS WP:N

One of the things about the arbcom, for better or for worse, is that it is a political entity insofar as its members are elected and its remedies are enforced due to community support for them rather than by technical force. Anything that the arbcom does (and even to a certain extent its members and former members) should be informed by the community's likely reaction to it. One of the reasons the arbcom appears opaque is its awareness of the presence of a reaction to everything it says. In those cases where a decision might be unpopular, I would balance that against the importance of the principle at work and try do act in the best long-term interests of the project. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)