This page is for asking a question of a candidate. Editors who are eligible to vote may ask a question, via one of the following methods:
Guidance for candidates: Candidates are requested to provide their responses before voting starts on 1 December. They are reminded that voters may support or oppose based on which questions are responded to as well as the responses themselves. Candidates are welcome to refuse to answer a question if they feel uncomfortable doing so; if a question is very similar to another, candidates are welcome to simply refer the editor to their response to the similar question. |
Note instead of judging me because of my prior history, can you judge me because of my answers to the questions if possible as health issues did play a role with my history. Also I'm going to be mostly away for the Thanksgiving holiday so a response to the answers might be slower than usual. I want to be treated like a regular top-quality candidate, so place as much questions as you can. Even if I don't succeed, I will place my experience to use either by becoming a clerk for the committee or a member of MEDCOM. Thanks Secret account 16:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
(1) Thank you for running, and good luck with your candidacy. What do you find to be the most important characteristic of a successful arbitrator on Wikipedia? This can be either a historic trait seen in one or more of the 53 arbitrators who have served since 2004, or an ideal trait that you would like to see in future arbitrators. ( UltraExactZZ)
(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. ( Tony1)
(3) Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:
(4) As an arbitrator you will find that most of your work is done away from enwiki, either on mailing lists or on the private Arbitration wiki. How will you cope with the tension between the community desire for openness and the need for confidentiality for personal information about parties to arbitration decisions? ( Sam Blacketer)
(5) Sociologists have spotted that individual members of groups of people sometimes suppress independent and dissenting thoughts which they think may be unpopular with the other group members. As the Arbitration Committee depends on the cohesion of its members, and has to take controversial decisions, do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid this approach of ' groupthink'? If so, what steps would you take? ( Sam Blacketer)
(6) I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator? ( Juliancolton)
(7) Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic do you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you actually read? ( Tznkai)
(8) An arbitrator who is a participant in a case, and thus recused from acting in his or her official capacity, still retains access to confidential materials (mailing list posts, the ArbCom wiki, etc). Is her or his reading these materials acceptable? What (if any) use of these materials by the recused arbitrator is acceptable, and what safeguards (if any) are needed to prevent inappropriate usage? I am thinking (for example) about actions like making case-related comments on the ArbCom list, emailing editors who have submitted private evidence, and posting additional evidence / comments on wiki relevant to concerns expressed privately by the other committee members. Should inappropriate usage be dealt with publicly on wiki, or privately between ArbCom members? ( EdChem)
(9) Should the process of (a) reviewing admin actions that may have breached policy, and (b) desysopping, remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo), or would you prefer that a community-based process also perform these roles? ( LessHeard vanU)
(10) Over the past year Arbcom has desysopped a number of admins. Generally do you think Arbcom has (a) not desysopped enough (b) got it about right (c) desysopped too much over this period? Why? ( Davewild)
(11) Do you support or oppose the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval? ( Finn Casey)
(12) Would you consider taking a case where it is clear that an admin has lost community trust, but there has been no RfC or attempts to resolve the issue? ( Majorly)
(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. ( NuclearWarfare)
(14) If it's discovered that an admin is a sock of a banned user, and that some users (including, but not only, admins) who had voted in Example's RFA knew this at the time, what measures should be taken against those voters? ( Od Mishehu)
(15) Over the past year Arbcom has made a few change in how it runs, such as introducing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee and establishing the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. What changes (if any) would you make in how the Arbitration Committee works? ( Davewild) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(16) In last year's election one of the successful candidates said in answer to a question "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generally be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree or disagree, and why? ( Davewild)
(17) ArbCom cases divert vast amounts of editor time and goodwill into often pointless arguments, causing constructive editors to feel oppressed and disillusioned, and leading to "remedies" that are in fact retributive punishments (often ill-targeted) that fail to remedy any real problems. Do you agree, and what would you do about it? ( Kotniski)
(18) Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why? How important is the ArbCom dispute resolution process? ( Camaron/ Majorly)
(19) A number editors in the community have expressed concern that the Arbitration Committee is becoming too powerful and expansive in response to some committee actions including the creation of the Advisory Council on Project Development and BLP special enforcement. Do you agree with them? How will you deal with such concerns if you are successfully elected to the committee? ( Camaron)
(20) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made any direct content rulings, i.e., how an article should read in the event of a dispute. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Should it sanction users for repeated content policy violations, even if there is no record of repeated conduct policy violations? Can the committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? ( Heimstern)
(21) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: In my opinion and many others', the worst problem to plague Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how? ( Heimstern)
(22) Civility: How and when to enforce civility restrictions remains controversial. How admins should enforce it is largely outside the scope of this election, so I ask you this: To what extent and how should ArbCom enforce civility? Is incivility grounds for desysopping? Banning? Are civility restrictions a good idea? To what extent is incivility mitigated by circumstances such as baiting or repeated content abuses (POV pushing, original research etc.) by others? ( Heimstern)
(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? ( Offliner)
(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? ( Majorly)
(25) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's decision to set up Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development earlier this summer? If you were one of the founding members of the advisory council, please explain why you accepted the invitation to join the committee. ( NuclearWarfare)
(26) As of May 2009, only 5 of the 16 Arbitrators had made more than 500 edits to the mainspace in the past calendar year. Several arbitrators' past 500 edits stretched back over 12 months. [1] Considering this, do you feel that the Arbitration Committee is qualified to judge conduct disputes that overlap heavily with content disputes? Please elaborate. ( NuclearWarfare)
(27) Do you agree with the committee's decision to reban the_undertow/Law (see motion here)? Would you have handled the situation differently? ( Jake Wartenberg)
(28) Why do you think the committee chose to desysop Jennavecia but not Jayron32 (the motion to desysop Jennavecia was passing with all arbitrators having voted when Jennavecia resigned, the motion to desysop Jayron32 had been and was rejected; see the previous link)? How would you have voted? ( Jake Wartenberg)
(29) Iridescent and MZMcBride have both publicly admitted that they knew that Law was the_undertow at the time of Law's RfA. While MZMcBride did not vote in Law's RfA, Iridescent did. Noting that Iridescent is currently a user who has the ability to request the admin bit back at WP:BN at any time and that MZMcBride is currently a sysop, what do you think, if anything, should the Arbitration Committee have done? ( Jake Wartenberg)
(30) Out of all the cases handled by the Arbitration Committee in 2009, which one(s) do you think the committee as a whole handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choice(s). ( Camaron)
(31) For the purpose of the following five questions, please assume the principles in question are directly relevant to the facts of the case that you are deciding as an arbitrator. Would you support or oppose these principles as written should they be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? (To keep the amount of time required to respond to these examples to an absolute minimum, I personally would consider one or two sentences to be ample reasoning for the "why" part of this question; that kind of statement length is akin to many of the Arbitrator votes on the proposed decision pages of a case.) ( Daniel)
(i) "Private correspondence", July 2007
(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007
(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008
(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008
(v) "Outing", June 2009
(32) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's recent decision to appoint MBisanz as a fourth community member – or rather, alternate member with full access and possible voting rights – to the Audit Subcommittee after an election which was to elect three members to the subcommittee? ( NuclearWarfare)
(33) Originally RfARs were named in the style of "Party X v. Party Y", in line with the idea of two groups in opposition to each other (eg. User:Guanaco versus User:Lir). Later it was changed to naming an individual user (eg. Husnock). Now cases get random names like Highways 2. What naming convention do you believe is the appropriate one for ArbCom to use in designating case names? Under what circumstances should a case name be changed after opening, such as in A/R/Zeraeph? ( MBisanz)
(34) Do you feel that the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach is correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? ( NuclearWarfare)
(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? ( Hipocrite)
(36) One issue on which arbitrators (and others participating in cases) frequently disagree is how "strict" versus "lenient" the committee should be toward users who misbehave and need to be sanctioned. Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, as a general matter in the types of cases that tend to lead to split votes among the arbitrators, do you think you would side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or those who vote for a greater number of bans and desysoppings? Generally, in a given case what factors might lead you to vote for (a) a less severe sanction, or for (b) a long-term ban or a desysopping? ( Newyorkbrad)
I'm a candidate, but I expect to be voting for other people, so welcome to the race. You had only 13 edits in the six months May-October 2009. How do we know that you have, as you put it, kept up on things?
Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2008, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support. Please note that if you are not an administrator, have not been here for a substantial length of time, or have a statement that is not written seriously, this will drastically affect your score.
The first 10 questions are short answer questions. The last question is a bit open-ended.
I felt that it took too long for that case to finish. Over four months is way too much.
Wikiprojects can’t trump our core policies in Wikipedia, but they can be quite a help to make our encyclopedia better. I believe that Wikiprojects can enforce standards to articles, if the relevant Wikipedia policy is unclear on the situation, such as article layout. They can also understand policies better with articles related to their subject, as editors of these projects can be considered experts of the subject.
If the user is ignoring consensus, and has no productive edits to articles, the best thing to do is to mention it in WP:AN/I and discuss with the user in his user talk page, saying to stop with his behavior or risk a block. If that doesn’t work, a block must be considered. I would first block for a few days, to check if he gets the picture, and maybe make him a helpful contributor. If that doesn’t work, I guess he’s on the project for some sort of agenda, and block him indef.
I was one of the editors who highly endorsed User:Kmweber ban back in 2008 because of the same circumstances you explained. But Kmweber didn’t contribute much to articles, thus why I supported the ban. If the user doesn’t do nothing but the circumstances explained, the user can be considered as a WP:TROLL and can be blocked. If the user is helpful with articles though, it needs to be discussed via WP:AN/I or a WP:RFC can be in order. If that doesn’t work, then it must be send to the committee.
I would try to communicate with the editor, and explain what he is doing wrong. I would fix his edits, and if I see potential in the editor, I’ll be willing to tutor him. If he doesn’t understand English, I would either look for an editor who understands his language, or lead him to the right Wikipedia. If he still damaging the project, a block might be in order, but I would only use it as a last resort.
The circumstances can lead to a community ban if the editor doesn’t reform themselves, and contribute positively to the encyclopedia. It would have to be discussed by the community though, especially the first two circumstances. An indefinite block is more likely for #3 and #5 though.
The three revert rule is a destructive form of revert warning in which an editor made three or more reverts to an article within a 24 hour period. Vandalism and WP:BLP violations are exempt from the three revert rule. It should be enforced with a warning that you have violated, or is close to violating the rule. If the editor ignores your warning, then a block is in order, from 24 hours for a first offense to a week or more for multiple offenses.
If the username is clearly provocative, or a clear impersonation of another editor I would block on sight. But if it’s borderline, I would look at their edits closely. If the editing is unconstructive, or promoting a company I would block on sight. But if they have some constructive edits, I would politely ask them that their username can be considered by some as potentially provocative and to lead then to WP:CHU
I don’t believe every edit should be reverted for a banned user. But if the edit is unconstructive, editing a subject from which he was banned from, or isn’t on mainspace, it should be reverted on sight. If the edit is something that helps the encyclopedia, like fixing a typo, there is no point to revert an edit that’s going to be fixed later.
User:Casliber because of the unfortunate Law/The Undertow fiasco. Casliber was one of our most productive members of ArbCom, but he was one of the apparently many editors who knew that the underdow was Law, which was a breach of trust. But Casliber realized his mistake, stepped down quietly from the committee and community regained their trust on Casliber. I know why the rest of the other members stepped down, but I don’t want to discuss further.
There are quite a few problems with the Wikipedia community. But the most important problem in the community we are facing is a sudden lack of good contributors. Many of our most valued contributors left the project because they grew dissatisfied with the project. Unfortunately the project treats our article writers and experts like crap, there’s hardly a decent policy to deal with harassment, and consensus can’t be formed on anything. WP:RFA wasn’t this dead since 2004. We need to develop a system to bring back these contributors, and to bring new editors for the project. I don’t believe WP:NOOB is the solution, it needs to be discussed further, and I feel like the Arbitration Committee can lead the way, with the community support. Secret account 03:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Note to readers: This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2009/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and modified to fit changes in circumstance.
Note to respondents: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so. Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all. For those of you that ran last year, feel free to cut and paste last year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded.
Read my answer to NuclearWarfare question (34) on my stance to BLP, I believe its way too lenient right now.
These are not easy questions. I hope you will choose to answer them, as your thoughtful answers will be appreciated, by more folk than just myself. ++
Lar:
t/
c 23:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This page is for asking a question of a candidate. Editors who are eligible to vote may ask a question, via one of the following methods:
Guidance for candidates: Candidates are requested to provide their responses before voting starts on 1 December. They are reminded that voters may support or oppose based on which questions are responded to as well as the responses themselves. Candidates are welcome to refuse to answer a question if they feel uncomfortable doing so; if a question is very similar to another, candidates are welcome to simply refer the editor to their response to the similar question. |
Note instead of judging me because of my prior history, can you judge me because of my answers to the questions if possible as health issues did play a role with my history. Also I'm going to be mostly away for the Thanksgiving holiday so a response to the answers might be slower than usual. I want to be treated like a regular top-quality candidate, so place as much questions as you can. Even if I don't succeed, I will place my experience to use either by becoming a clerk for the committee or a member of MEDCOM. Thanks Secret account 16:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
(1) Thank you for running, and good luck with your candidacy. What do you find to be the most important characteristic of a successful arbitrator on Wikipedia? This can be either a historic trait seen in one or more of the 53 arbitrators who have served since 2004, or an ideal trait that you would like to see in future arbitrators. ( UltraExactZZ)
(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. ( Tony1)
(3) Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:
(4) As an arbitrator you will find that most of your work is done away from enwiki, either on mailing lists or on the private Arbitration wiki. How will you cope with the tension between the community desire for openness and the need for confidentiality for personal information about parties to arbitration decisions? ( Sam Blacketer)
(5) Sociologists have spotted that individual members of groups of people sometimes suppress independent and dissenting thoughts which they think may be unpopular with the other group members. As the Arbitration Committee depends on the cohesion of its members, and has to take controversial decisions, do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid this approach of ' groupthink'? If so, what steps would you take? ( Sam Blacketer)
(6) I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator? ( Juliancolton)
(7) Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic do you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you actually read? ( Tznkai)
(8) An arbitrator who is a participant in a case, and thus recused from acting in his or her official capacity, still retains access to confidential materials (mailing list posts, the ArbCom wiki, etc). Is her or his reading these materials acceptable? What (if any) use of these materials by the recused arbitrator is acceptable, and what safeguards (if any) are needed to prevent inappropriate usage? I am thinking (for example) about actions like making case-related comments on the ArbCom list, emailing editors who have submitted private evidence, and posting additional evidence / comments on wiki relevant to concerns expressed privately by the other committee members. Should inappropriate usage be dealt with publicly on wiki, or privately between ArbCom members? ( EdChem)
(9) Should the process of (a) reviewing admin actions that may have breached policy, and (b) desysopping, remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo), or would you prefer that a community-based process also perform these roles? ( LessHeard vanU)
(10) Over the past year Arbcom has desysopped a number of admins. Generally do you think Arbcom has (a) not desysopped enough (b) got it about right (c) desysopped too much over this period? Why? ( Davewild)
(11) Do you support or oppose the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval? ( Finn Casey)
(12) Would you consider taking a case where it is clear that an admin has lost community trust, but there has been no RfC or attempts to resolve the issue? ( Majorly)
(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. ( NuclearWarfare)
(14) If it's discovered that an admin is a sock of a banned user, and that some users (including, but not only, admins) who had voted in Example's RFA knew this at the time, what measures should be taken against those voters? ( Od Mishehu)
(15) Over the past year Arbcom has made a few change in how it runs, such as introducing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee and establishing the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. What changes (if any) would you make in how the Arbitration Committee works? ( Davewild) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(16) In last year's election one of the successful candidates said in answer to a question "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generally be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree or disagree, and why? ( Davewild)
(17) ArbCom cases divert vast amounts of editor time and goodwill into often pointless arguments, causing constructive editors to feel oppressed and disillusioned, and leading to "remedies" that are in fact retributive punishments (often ill-targeted) that fail to remedy any real problems. Do you agree, and what would you do about it? ( Kotniski)
(18) Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why? How important is the ArbCom dispute resolution process? ( Camaron/ Majorly)
(19) A number editors in the community have expressed concern that the Arbitration Committee is becoming too powerful and expansive in response to some committee actions including the creation of the Advisory Council on Project Development and BLP special enforcement. Do you agree with them? How will you deal with such concerns if you are successfully elected to the committee? ( Camaron)
(20) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made any direct content rulings, i.e., how an article should read in the event of a dispute. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Should it sanction users for repeated content policy violations, even if there is no record of repeated conduct policy violations? Can the committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? ( Heimstern)
(21) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: In my opinion and many others', the worst problem to plague Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how? ( Heimstern)
(22) Civility: How and when to enforce civility restrictions remains controversial. How admins should enforce it is largely outside the scope of this election, so I ask you this: To what extent and how should ArbCom enforce civility? Is incivility grounds for desysopping? Banning? Are civility restrictions a good idea? To what extent is incivility mitigated by circumstances such as baiting or repeated content abuses (POV pushing, original research etc.) by others? ( Heimstern)
(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? ( Offliner)
(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? ( Majorly)
(25) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's decision to set up Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development earlier this summer? If you were one of the founding members of the advisory council, please explain why you accepted the invitation to join the committee. ( NuclearWarfare)
(26) As of May 2009, only 5 of the 16 Arbitrators had made more than 500 edits to the mainspace in the past calendar year. Several arbitrators' past 500 edits stretched back over 12 months. [1] Considering this, do you feel that the Arbitration Committee is qualified to judge conduct disputes that overlap heavily with content disputes? Please elaborate. ( NuclearWarfare)
(27) Do you agree with the committee's decision to reban the_undertow/Law (see motion here)? Would you have handled the situation differently? ( Jake Wartenberg)
(28) Why do you think the committee chose to desysop Jennavecia but not Jayron32 (the motion to desysop Jennavecia was passing with all arbitrators having voted when Jennavecia resigned, the motion to desysop Jayron32 had been and was rejected; see the previous link)? How would you have voted? ( Jake Wartenberg)
(29) Iridescent and MZMcBride have both publicly admitted that they knew that Law was the_undertow at the time of Law's RfA. While MZMcBride did not vote in Law's RfA, Iridescent did. Noting that Iridescent is currently a user who has the ability to request the admin bit back at WP:BN at any time and that MZMcBride is currently a sysop, what do you think, if anything, should the Arbitration Committee have done? ( Jake Wartenberg)
(30) Out of all the cases handled by the Arbitration Committee in 2009, which one(s) do you think the committee as a whole handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choice(s). ( Camaron)
(31) For the purpose of the following five questions, please assume the principles in question are directly relevant to the facts of the case that you are deciding as an arbitrator. Would you support or oppose these principles as written should they be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? (To keep the amount of time required to respond to these examples to an absolute minimum, I personally would consider one or two sentences to be ample reasoning for the "why" part of this question; that kind of statement length is akin to many of the Arbitrator votes on the proposed decision pages of a case.) ( Daniel)
(i) "Private correspondence", July 2007
(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007
(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008
(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008
(v) "Outing", June 2009
(32) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's recent decision to appoint MBisanz as a fourth community member – or rather, alternate member with full access and possible voting rights – to the Audit Subcommittee after an election which was to elect three members to the subcommittee? ( NuclearWarfare)
(33) Originally RfARs were named in the style of "Party X v. Party Y", in line with the idea of two groups in opposition to each other (eg. User:Guanaco versus User:Lir). Later it was changed to naming an individual user (eg. Husnock). Now cases get random names like Highways 2. What naming convention do you believe is the appropriate one for ArbCom to use in designating case names? Under what circumstances should a case name be changed after opening, such as in A/R/Zeraeph? ( MBisanz)
(34) Do you feel that the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach is correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? ( NuclearWarfare)
(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? ( Hipocrite)
(36) One issue on which arbitrators (and others participating in cases) frequently disagree is how "strict" versus "lenient" the committee should be toward users who misbehave and need to be sanctioned. Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, as a general matter in the types of cases that tend to lead to split votes among the arbitrators, do you think you would side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or those who vote for a greater number of bans and desysoppings? Generally, in a given case what factors might lead you to vote for (a) a less severe sanction, or for (b) a long-term ban or a desysopping? ( Newyorkbrad)
I'm a candidate, but I expect to be voting for other people, so welcome to the race. You had only 13 edits in the six months May-October 2009. How do we know that you have, as you put it, kept up on things?
Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2008, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support. Please note that if you are not an administrator, have not been here for a substantial length of time, or have a statement that is not written seriously, this will drastically affect your score.
The first 10 questions are short answer questions. The last question is a bit open-ended.
I felt that it took too long for that case to finish. Over four months is way too much.
Wikiprojects can’t trump our core policies in Wikipedia, but they can be quite a help to make our encyclopedia better. I believe that Wikiprojects can enforce standards to articles, if the relevant Wikipedia policy is unclear on the situation, such as article layout. They can also understand policies better with articles related to their subject, as editors of these projects can be considered experts of the subject.
If the user is ignoring consensus, and has no productive edits to articles, the best thing to do is to mention it in WP:AN/I and discuss with the user in his user talk page, saying to stop with his behavior or risk a block. If that doesn’t work, a block must be considered. I would first block for a few days, to check if he gets the picture, and maybe make him a helpful contributor. If that doesn’t work, I guess he’s on the project for some sort of agenda, and block him indef.
I was one of the editors who highly endorsed User:Kmweber ban back in 2008 because of the same circumstances you explained. But Kmweber didn’t contribute much to articles, thus why I supported the ban. If the user doesn’t do nothing but the circumstances explained, the user can be considered as a WP:TROLL and can be blocked. If the user is helpful with articles though, it needs to be discussed via WP:AN/I or a WP:RFC can be in order. If that doesn’t work, then it must be send to the committee.
I would try to communicate with the editor, and explain what he is doing wrong. I would fix his edits, and if I see potential in the editor, I’ll be willing to tutor him. If he doesn’t understand English, I would either look for an editor who understands his language, or lead him to the right Wikipedia. If he still damaging the project, a block might be in order, but I would only use it as a last resort.
The circumstances can lead to a community ban if the editor doesn’t reform themselves, and contribute positively to the encyclopedia. It would have to be discussed by the community though, especially the first two circumstances. An indefinite block is more likely for #3 and #5 though.
The three revert rule is a destructive form of revert warning in which an editor made three or more reverts to an article within a 24 hour period. Vandalism and WP:BLP violations are exempt from the three revert rule. It should be enforced with a warning that you have violated, or is close to violating the rule. If the editor ignores your warning, then a block is in order, from 24 hours for a first offense to a week or more for multiple offenses.
If the username is clearly provocative, or a clear impersonation of another editor I would block on sight. But if it’s borderline, I would look at their edits closely. If the editing is unconstructive, or promoting a company I would block on sight. But if they have some constructive edits, I would politely ask them that their username can be considered by some as potentially provocative and to lead then to WP:CHU
I don’t believe every edit should be reverted for a banned user. But if the edit is unconstructive, editing a subject from which he was banned from, or isn’t on mainspace, it should be reverted on sight. If the edit is something that helps the encyclopedia, like fixing a typo, there is no point to revert an edit that’s going to be fixed later.
User:Casliber because of the unfortunate Law/The Undertow fiasco. Casliber was one of our most productive members of ArbCom, but he was one of the apparently many editors who knew that the underdow was Law, which was a breach of trust. But Casliber realized his mistake, stepped down quietly from the committee and community regained their trust on Casliber. I know why the rest of the other members stepped down, but I don’t want to discuss further.
There are quite a few problems with the Wikipedia community. But the most important problem in the community we are facing is a sudden lack of good contributors. Many of our most valued contributors left the project because they grew dissatisfied with the project. Unfortunately the project treats our article writers and experts like crap, there’s hardly a decent policy to deal with harassment, and consensus can’t be formed on anything. WP:RFA wasn’t this dead since 2004. We need to develop a system to bring back these contributors, and to bring new editors for the project. I don’t believe WP:NOOB is the solution, it needs to be discussed further, and I feel like the Arbitration Committee can lead the way, with the community support. Secret account 03:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Note to readers: This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2009/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and modified to fit changes in circumstance.
Note to respondents: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so. Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all. For those of you that ran last year, feel free to cut and paste last year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded.
Read my answer to NuclearWarfare question (34) on my stance to BLP, I believe its way too lenient right now.
These are not easy questions. I hope you will choose to answer them, as your thoughtful answers will be appreciated, by more folk than just myself. ++
Lar:
t/
c 23:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)