Thanks, east.718 at 01:23, 11/2/2007
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 In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Wikipedia.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) 01:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?
Thanks, Wanderer57 01:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Followup note: My question was absolutely not aimed at you. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks for your frankness.
Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused? Wanderer57 02:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
1: The use of IRC evidence in arbitration cases has flared up in certain cases. A few questions on this:-
2: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they?
3: Are Wikipedians, in particular administrators, required to answer to the Committee for their activites outside English Wikipedia (ie. on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wikipedia-related websites including The Wikipedia Review, conduct linked to Wikipedia etc.). Should they be? If so, should the Arbitration Committee have intervened in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision?
4: Theoretical situation: an OTRS respondent blanks a section of an article on a living person, clearly stating that it is an OTRS action based on a semi-credible legal threat in the edit summary. The respondent then protects the article and leaves a note on the talk page asking for the section to be rebuilt, citing OTRS again. An administrator comes along and unprotects it 15mins later and reverts to the old version. A series of administrative and editorial reversions take place, with protection and unprotection (with content reversions) occurring three times in quick succession before both administrators are emergency-desysopped.
The article is then reprotected by a third administrator, and a case brought before the Arbitration Committee. Upon reviewing the OTRS ticket privately on the mailing list, it contains a semi-credible legal threat which is now being dealt with by legal counsel. With regards to the three administrators, what sanctions do you 'support' applying to each of the three?
5: What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war?
These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)
Thanks for your time. Majorly ( talk) 08:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Are there any subject areas that you would recuse yourself from? Thanks! Addhoc 14:14, 2 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 19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
How would you described the present condition/status of the Wikipedia community in general from your own POV? †Bloodpack† 21:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
In my experience, many larger arbitrations seem to suffer from the fact that the arbitrators do not spend as much time on examining the evidence and statements as they should be spending. Examples of problems that arise would be proposals not being used or relevant issues not even being addressed. This is probably due to the large backlog and caseload. What would you do to ensure that all arbitrations are ended efficiently and fairly and that all issues and concerns are addressed and all needed remedies met? Wikidudeman (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
What's your opinion on Jimbo's desysop of Zscout370? — H 2O — 00:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cat. I must say I really liked your answer to Xaosflux's question about checkuser privileges, but here's one question from me:
How has your view of copyright changed since the drama which caused User:RickK to be blocked and to eventually leave Wikipedia? Corvus cornix 00:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?-- ragesoss 03:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you resolved your dispute with Ned Scott yet? User:Veesicle 13:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
What are your opinions of secret evidence being given privately to ArbCom? To what extent is this acceptable? User:Veesicle 00:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer.
Thanks for your time and good luck. WjB scribe 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:
The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear 16:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you successfully nominated any articles that you've heavily edited for Featured or Good Article status? Cla68 03:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?--David Shankbone 18:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? AniMate 12:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 ( talk) 01:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I did make a mistake on question 3 - it should read as follows.
Apologies. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing [2]. Amongst the reasons for this suggestion is to prevent parties from revising policy in a way that favours their point of view, to prevent edit wars on active policies, and to maintain a stable policy base so that users can rest assured that they are staying within policy. Do you believe that this is a good course of action for the encyclopedia? Please respond from your perspective as a prospective member of Arbcom who would be responsible for interpreting policy (but feel free to add your opinion as an editor as well). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker ( talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Can/Should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote? 2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member? -- Blue Tie 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
How would you vote on this proposed principle: "While anyone may edit Wikipedia without the need to register, that meta-editing activities such as voting in an ArbCom Election are best protected by registering than by sleuthing". SilkTork * SilkyTalk 17:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private.
Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?
What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?
Arbitrators who are parties of the case or have an involvement with the case parties that can reasonably be considered to affect their impartiality are expected to recuse. What involvement constitutes the ground for a recusal has traditionally been left to the arbitrators' own discretion, except for obvious cases when arbitrators themselves are case parties. While recused arbitrators, especially the case parties, are allowed to take an active part in cases, collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages, the same way as ordinary parties, they retain the opportunity to read the thoughts of other arbitrators at Arbcom-L and respond to those privately. It is technically difficult to exclude arbitrators from communication on a case they are involved. But would you support a prohibition for such arbitrators to discuss the case with other arbitrators through the private communication channels, except when submitting evidence whose nature warrants non-publicity?
Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?
I have no idea if this has been asked before, so please let me know if that is the case. In your initial statement, you mentioned your missteps, but I'm rather more interested in any contributions you've made to the project to offset that.
- Mgm| (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
What is your position on the following?
wbfergus Talk 15:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a community that produces and maintains a (still-nascent) encyclopaedia. This community has particular social and political structures that define it and that, presumably, affect the character, quality, and depth of its encyclopaedic output. Can you briefly summarise some political and social aspects of the Wikipedia community that you consider important or noteworthy, that perhaps need to be challenged or developed? How does the structure of Wikipedia encourage or inhibit access to decision-making and issues of power/control? Or does any of that matter? And what are the implications for the Arbitration Committee and its members? Pinkville ( talk) 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, east.718 at 01:23, 11/2/2007
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) 01:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?
Thanks, Wanderer57 01:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Followup note: My question was absolutely not aimed at you. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks for your frankness.
Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused? Wanderer57 02:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
1: The use of IRC evidence in arbitration cases has flared up in certain cases. A few questions on this:-
2: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they?
3: Are Wikipedians, in particular administrators, required to answer to the Committee for their activites outside English Wikipedia (ie. on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wikipedia-related websites including The Wikipedia Review, conduct linked to Wikipedia etc.). Should they be? If so, should the Arbitration Committee have intervened in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision?
4: Theoretical situation: an OTRS respondent blanks a section of an article on a living person, clearly stating that it is an OTRS action based on a semi-credible legal threat in the edit summary. The respondent then protects the article and leaves a note on the talk page asking for the section to be rebuilt, citing OTRS again. An administrator comes along and unprotects it 15mins later and reverts to the old version. A series of administrative and editorial reversions take place, with protection and unprotection (with content reversions) occurring three times in quick succession before both administrators are emergency-desysopped.
The article is then reprotected by a third administrator, and a case brought before the Arbitration Committee. Upon reviewing the OTRS ticket privately on the mailing list, it contains a semi-credible legal threat which is now being dealt with by legal counsel. With regards to the three administrators, what sanctions do you 'support' applying to each of the three?
5: What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war?
These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)
Thanks for your time. Majorly ( talk) 08:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Are there any subject areas that you would recuse yourself from? Thanks! Addhoc 14:14, 2 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 19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
How would you described the present condition/status of the Wikipedia community in general from your own POV? †Bloodpack† 21:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
In my experience, many larger arbitrations seem to suffer from the fact that the arbitrators do not spend as much time on examining the evidence and statements as they should be spending. Examples of problems that arise would be proposals not being used or relevant issues not even being addressed. This is probably due to the large backlog and caseload. What would you do to ensure that all arbitrations are ended efficiently and fairly and that all issues and concerns are addressed and all needed remedies met? Wikidudeman (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
What's your opinion on Jimbo's desysop of Zscout370? — H 2O — 00:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cat. I must say I really liked your answer to Xaosflux's question about checkuser privileges, but here's one question from me:
How has your view of copyright changed since the drama which caused User:RickK to be blocked and to eventually leave Wikipedia? Corvus cornix 00:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?-- ragesoss 03:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you resolved your dispute with Ned Scott yet? User:Veesicle 13:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
What are your opinions of secret evidence being given privately to ArbCom? To what extent is this acceptable? User:Veesicle 00:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer.
Thanks for your time and good luck. WjB scribe 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:
The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear 16:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you successfully nominated any articles that you've heavily edited for Featured or Good Article status? Cla68 03:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?--David Shankbone 18:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? AniMate 12:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 ( talk) 01:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I did make a mistake on question 3 - it should read as follows.
Apologies. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing [2]. Amongst the reasons for this suggestion is to prevent parties from revising policy in a way that favours their point of view, to prevent edit wars on active policies, and to maintain a stable policy base so that users can rest assured that they are staying within policy. Do you believe that this is a good course of action for the encyclopedia? Please respond from your perspective as a prospective member of Arbcom who would be responsible for interpreting policy (but feel free to add your opinion as an editor as well). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker ( talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Can/Should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote? 2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member? -- Blue Tie 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
How would you vote on this proposed principle: "While anyone may edit Wikipedia without the need to register, that meta-editing activities such as voting in an ArbCom Election are best protected by registering than by sleuthing". SilkTork * SilkyTalk 17:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private.
Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?
What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?
Arbitrators who are parties of the case or have an involvement with the case parties that can reasonably be considered to affect their impartiality are expected to recuse. What involvement constitutes the ground for a recusal has traditionally been left to the arbitrators' own discretion, except for obvious cases when arbitrators themselves are case parties. While recused arbitrators, especially the case parties, are allowed to take an active part in cases, collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages, the same way as ordinary parties, they retain the opportunity to read the thoughts of other arbitrators at Arbcom-L and respond to those privately. It is technically difficult to exclude arbitrators from communication on a case they are involved. But would you support a prohibition for such arbitrators to discuss the case with other arbitrators through the private communication channels, except when submitting evidence whose nature warrants non-publicity?
Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?
I have no idea if this has been asked before, so please let me know if that is the case. In your initial statement, you mentioned your missteps, but I'm rather more interested in any contributions you've made to the project to offset that.
- Mgm| (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
What is your position on the following?
wbfergus Talk 15:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a community that produces and maintains a (still-nascent) encyclopaedia. This community has particular social and political structures that define it and that, presumably, affect the character, quality, and depth of its encyclopaedic output. Can you briefly summarise some political and social aspects of the Wikipedia community that you consider important or noteworthy, that perhaps need to be challenged or developed? How does the structure of Wikipedia encourage or inhibit access to decision-making and issues of power/control? Or does any of that matter? And what are the implications for the Arbitration Committee and its members? Pinkville ( talk) 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)