Question from Maxim
- Why do you want to be an arbitrator?
- A: I would like to be an arbitrator so that I could help out at the Arbitration Committee. I could solve the disputes if all the other results have failed. If a user is causing serious problems, and all resorts are used, but that user is still causing trouble, then, as an arbitrator, I could get the user banned by the Arbitration Committee. NHRHS2010 talk 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing.
- Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Wikipedia in three years. Should there be a mechanism by which the Community can recall an arbitrator in whose judgment it loses confidence? Do you have any thoughts as to what form that mechanism should take?
- ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Wikipedia. Would you advocate withdrawing the access in the case of someone someone who failed to make sufficient use of it? If yes, what sort of activity level would you say is required?
- Where the Community finds itself unable to reach a consensus on the formulation of a given policy, do you think ArbCom has a role to play in determining that policy?
Thanks for your time and good luck. WjB scribe 23:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
My questions are kind of nitty-gritty, but I'm not looking for really specific answers as much as trying to see your thought process and approaches to the issues.
1. What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate?
2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?
3. When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?
4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?
5. Two recent cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, were dismissed with no decision made after the Committee had been unable to come to a decision concerning wrongdoing or sanctions. In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Wikipedia. Now, consider a similar situation in which the Committee cannot agree on finding concerning user conduct or on appropriate sanctions, but in which the case issues are clearly current. What should be done in such a case?
Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be quite an active vandal fighter, and you certainly have added much local transportation information to articles for New Jersey towns, but your 3rd attempt to become an administrator, Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/NHRHS2010_3 just failed on Friday. Do you think that the community should have looser standards for choosing arbitrators than it does for choosing admins? Jd2718 00:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- A: Just to tell you that 'failed' really means that RfA was closed by a bureaucrat because there were more opposes than supports. I just withdrew my 3rd RfA before it would actually fail. However, I admit that my RfAs failed. I believe that the community should choose arbitrators the similar way as voting RfAs. NHRHS2010 talk 00:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?
- Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why?
Thanks, east.718 at 01:13, 11/13/2007
Have you successfully nominated any articles that you've heavily edited for Featured or Good Article status? Cla68 03:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Q1: The Arbitration Committee and its members are heavily scrutinized and frequently the subject of criticism. Therefore, it is expected that all members be resilient and be able to discuss disagreements in a professional manner. However, you have shown you are adverse to criticism, and rather than respond to it in a constructive manner you resort to saying "I am hurt" or "These comments are hurtful" ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). Do you believe your inability to accept constructive criticism will adversely affect you should you be promoted to the Arbitration Committee? Daniel 04:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Q2: The members of the Arbitration Committee frequently disagree with each other, and it is reasonable to assume they frequently that other members are "incorrect" or "wrong" (hence why not all proposals pass at requests for arbitration) on their private mailing list. Do you believe your inability to accept that people may be right when they disagree with you, as seen at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tikiwont, especially these two comments ( [8] [9]), may adversely affect you should you be promoted to the Arbitration Committee? Daniel 04:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Q3: Do you believe that behaviour such as this, this and this, are in line with the appropriate decorum required for an Arbitration Committee member? Daniel 04:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you 18 years of age or older? Judging from your name, you would appear to be graduating from NHR high school in 2010, which would put your age at around 16. This appears in inline with one of the youtube links someone posted above, which had a video uploaded by youtube user NHRHS2010 entitled "this is what 10th grade looks like", also putting your age at around 16. Currently there does not appear to be a requirement that arbitrators be 18 years old or older (if there is, I haven't found one), but given the sensitive nature of the position and the likelyhood of dealing with privacy policy issues, such as checkuser use (which requires that a user be 18 years old and personally identified to the foundation), do you think that it is wise to run for such a position? ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- A: No, I am not over 18. I am not going to be a checkuser anyways, but would like to be an atbitrator. NHRHS2010 talk 11:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Arbitrators hand out checkuser, and most arbitrators have access to it. They also have access to oversight as well. Both of these require a user to be 18 years old. See, Access to nonpublic data policy, which states users must be 18 years old. Do you still feel like you can serve in the position? ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't mean that. It means that arbitrators sometimes deal with privacy policy issues, and having access to checkuser or oversight information when you are under 18 is violating a Wikimedia-wide policy, here. But still, if you do become an arbitrator and you are under 16, and therefore not allowed to access that type of information, you won't be able to take part in particular discussions and therefore make decisions based on the evidence. Spebi 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're not understanding. We're not discussing you becoming a checkuser or oversight, we're discussing that as an arbitrator, evidence in some cases may include checkuser or oversight information – and according to Wikimedia policy, because of your age, you are not allowed to access this evidence; because of this, you may be excluded from discussions, or rather, may not be able to make a decision based on all the evidence provided.
And arbitrators don't necessarily decide who becomes checkusers or oversights, they deal with conduct disputes rather than promotions of status.Spebi 04:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're not understanding. We're not discussing you becoming a checkuser or oversight, we're discussing that as an arbitrator, evidence in some cases may include checkuser or oversight information – and according to Wikimedia policy, because of your age, you are not allowed to access this evidence; because of this, you may be excluded from discussions, or rather, may not be able to make a decision based on all the evidence provided.
- Yes, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about cases where the arbitration relies on evidence that includes oversight or checkuser data. Such data would not be available to you, but such data would also be necessary to resolve the arbitration. What would you do in such a situation? ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.
Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.
Needless to say, it did not go well.
However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?-- ragesoss 17:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing myself from the Arbitration Committee elections because I would be better off doing this 2 years from now. NHRHS2010 talk 20:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Question from Maxim
- Why do you want to be an arbitrator?
- A: I would like to be an arbitrator so that I could help out at the Arbitration Committee. I could solve the disputes if all the other results have failed. If a user is causing serious problems, and all resorts are used, but that user is still causing trouble, then, as an arbitrator, I could get the user banned by the Arbitration Committee. NHRHS2010 talk 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing.
- Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Wikipedia in three years. Should there be a mechanism by which the Community can recall an arbitrator in whose judgment it loses confidence? Do you have any thoughts as to what form that mechanism should take?
- ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Wikipedia. Would you advocate withdrawing the access in the case of someone someone who failed to make sufficient use of it? If yes, what sort of activity level would you say is required?
- Where the Community finds itself unable to reach a consensus on the formulation of a given policy, do you think ArbCom has a role to play in determining that policy?
Thanks for your time and good luck. WjB scribe 23:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
My questions are kind of nitty-gritty, but I'm not looking for really specific answers as much as trying to see your thought process and approaches to the issues.
1. What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate?
2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?
3. When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?
4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?
5. Two recent cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, were dismissed with no decision made after the Committee had been unable to come to a decision concerning wrongdoing or sanctions. In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Wikipedia. Now, consider a similar situation in which the Committee cannot agree on finding concerning user conduct or on appropriate sanctions, but in which the case issues are clearly current. What should be done in such a case?
Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be quite an active vandal fighter, and you certainly have added much local transportation information to articles for New Jersey towns, but your 3rd attempt to become an administrator, Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/NHRHS2010_3 just failed on Friday. Do you think that the community should have looser standards for choosing arbitrators than it does for choosing admins? Jd2718 00:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- A: Just to tell you that 'failed' really means that RfA was closed by a bureaucrat because there were more opposes than supports. I just withdrew my 3rd RfA before it would actually fail. However, I admit that my RfAs failed. I believe that the community should choose arbitrators the similar way as voting RfAs. NHRHS2010 talk 00:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?
- Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why?
Thanks, east.718 at 01:13, 11/13/2007
Have you successfully nominated any articles that you've heavily edited for Featured or Good Article status? Cla68 03:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Q1: The Arbitration Committee and its members are heavily scrutinized and frequently the subject of criticism. Therefore, it is expected that all members be resilient and be able to discuss disagreements in a professional manner. However, you have shown you are adverse to criticism, and rather than respond to it in a constructive manner you resort to saying "I am hurt" or "These comments are hurtful" ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). Do you believe your inability to accept constructive criticism will adversely affect you should you be promoted to the Arbitration Committee? Daniel 04:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Q2: The members of the Arbitration Committee frequently disagree with each other, and it is reasonable to assume they frequently that other members are "incorrect" or "wrong" (hence why not all proposals pass at requests for arbitration) on their private mailing list. Do you believe your inability to accept that people may be right when they disagree with you, as seen at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tikiwont, especially these two comments ( [8] [9]), may adversely affect you should you be promoted to the Arbitration Committee? Daniel 04:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Q3: Do you believe that behaviour such as this, this and this, are in line with the appropriate decorum required for an Arbitration Committee member? Daniel 04:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you 18 years of age or older? Judging from your name, you would appear to be graduating from NHR high school in 2010, which would put your age at around 16. This appears in inline with one of the youtube links someone posted above, which had a video uploaded by youtube user NHRHS2010 entitled "this is what 10th grade looks like", also putting your age at around 16. Currently there does not appear to be a requirement that arbitrators be 18 years old or older (if there is, I haven't found one), but given the sensitive nature of the position and the likelyhood of dealing with privacy policy issues, such as checkuser use (which requires that a user be 18 years old and personally identified to the foundation), do you think that it is wise to run for such a position? ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- A: No, I am not over 18. I am not going to be a checkuser anyways, but would like to be an atbitrator. NHRHS2010 talk 11:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Arbitrators hand out checkuser, and most arbitrators have access to it. They also have access to oversight as well. Both of these require a user to be 18 years old. See, Access to nonpublic data policy, which states users must be 18 years old. Do you still feel like you can serve in the position? ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't mean that. It means that arbitrators sometimes deal with privacy policy issues, and having access to checkuser or oversight information when you are under 18 is violating a Wikimedia-wide policy, here. But still, if you do become an arbitrator and you are under 16, and therefore not allowed to access that type of information, you won't be able to take part in particular discussions and therefore make decisions based on the evidence. Spebi 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're not understanding. We're not discussing you becoming a checkuser or oversight, we're discussing that as an arbitrator, evidence in some cases may include checkuser or oversight information – and according to Wikimedia policy, because of your age, you are not allowed to access this evidence; because of this, you may be excluded from discussions, or rather, may not be able to make a decision based on all the evidence provided.
And arbitrators don't necessarily decide who becomes checkusers or oversights, they deal with conduct disputes rather than promotions of status.Spebi 04:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're not understanding. We're not discussing you becoming a checkuser or oversight, we're discussing that as an arbitrator, evidence in some cases may include checkuser or oversight information – and according to Wikimedia policy, because of your age, you are not allowed to access this evidence; because of this, you may be excluded from discussions, or rather, may not be able to make a decision based on all the evidence provided.
- Yes, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about cases where the arbitration relies on evidence that includes oversight or checkuser data. Such data would not be available to you, but such data would also be necessary to resolve the arbitration. What would you do in such a situation? ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.
Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.
Needless to say, it did not go well.
However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?-- ragesoss 17:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing myself from the Arbitration Committee elections because I would be better off doing this 2 years from now. NHRHS2010 talk 20:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)