As Wikipedia expands, it is suffering growing pains. This has increased the stress and workload on its administrators. Every administrator wears two hats: that of editor, and that of janitor. As an editor, every admin has the same rights and responsibilities as every other editor. As a janitor, admins have more options available to them, and with those options come increased responsibility. Sometimes, when things are at their most stressful, administrators can confuse the two hats, and mistake the janitor hat for that of a "supereditor." When this occurs, unhappiness ensues.
Arbcom has the potential to deal with problems that are beyond the abilities of any one administrator. To realize that potential, Arbcom has to make two crucial decisions: they must choose which requests to consider, and they must choose which requests not to consider. I would submit that the act of deciding wisely which cases need to be heard is, in most cases, more important than the details of whatever decision is reached. The ability to provide stability and some degree of finality to the community by reaching a decision at all is what matters. This bears repeating: it is important that Arbcom not get bogged down considering cases that could easily be dealt with by community consensus, or by reasonable admins. It is likewise crucial that Arbcom not shy away from difficult cases, simply because they are ugly. Deciding where the line falls is where the hard work is.
People who consistently disrupt the encyclopedia and do not contribute much should be banned. But every editor has the absolute right to be treated with civility, even in the midst of disagreement. The one rule that it is never appropriate to ignore is civility. As an arbitrator, my very first concern will be examining requests brought by the community with seriousness, respect, and civility. I will strive to bring as much transparency to the process as I possibly can. Thanks. Nandesuka 06:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Questions from Sjakkalle
First, I would like to say that I was delighted to see your name pop up on the list of candidates as you are one of the most law-abiding, reasonable, polite but firm and articulate administrators who we have here. I have these questions for you:
- What motivated your decision to declare a "last minute" candidacy for the ArbCom?
- Thanks for your comments, and the compliments. I hope my answers to your questions do them justice.
- I have noticed a marked increase in discontent among editors recently, particularly among editors who have been here a long time, and who don't have a reputation for being disruptive, or incautious, or uncivil. Coupled with this, I see what appears to me to be a marked increase in wheel warring among administrators. My impression is that the current ArbCom is timid when it comes to addressing these issues. Note that I'm not speaking of what decisions the ArbCom reaches, but simply that they seem, as a rule, to not even want to address the cases. This is, of course, the ArbCom's privilege, but I think that this timidity will be harmful to the encyclopedia in the medium term. The perception among a growing number of non-admin editors is that there is no reasonable recourse to capricious and arbitrary administrator action. I don't believe that this perception is accurate, but it needs to be taken seriously. If good editors lose confidence in our ability to self-regulate, they will find another project to contribute their efforts to. I love Wikipedia, and if I can keep that from happening and help restore confidence by giving such complaints a fair hearing, I'll do so. Nandesuka 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- How much time do you expect to use on ArbCom cases per week? Are you prepared to sacrifice that time?
- If recent history is any guide, I will have to have cybernetic implants installed so that I can spend 24 hours a day reading and editing the encyclopedia. But to answer you seriously, I would estimate that I currently spend about 30 to 40 hours a month (so let's call it 8 to 9 hours a week, on average) editing the encyclopedia, currently, depending on other obligations. I expect at least half of that time to go to ArbCom, and presumably more in particularly urgent weeks. I'm prepared to sacrifice that time. Nandesuka 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Questions from brenneman
Many of the most active committee members are seeking to be appointed again. Thus I'd like to hear what you'd do differently from the existing commitee, to give us some reason to switch horses, so to speak. - brenneman (t) (c) 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you point to any requests for arbitration that were accepted or rejected where you would have recomeded the opposite course?
- I think the RFArb currently up for consideration re: wheel warring is a prime example of the sort of case that the Arbcom should be hearing, regardless of what decision they reach. But who knows: they may still accept it. I will think carefully about whether I want to grovel through the archives and name more specific examples. While I'm comfortable giving my opinion on whether a given case is or is not important, I want to avoid even the appearance of directly criticizing the current members, who I'm sure are acting in good faith. In fact, I'm comfortable naming the wheel warring RFArb precisely because it hasn't been accepted or rejected yet. But I'll think this over and see if I can figure out a way to point to an RFArb where, in my personal opinion, the wrong call was made, and refer to it in a way that does not give offense.
Nandesuka
22:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm quiet happy with this answer as it stands. It demonstrates enough care and thoughtfullness to satisfy me.
brenneman (t) (c) 03:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm quiet happy with this answer as it stands. It demonstrates enough care and thoughtfullness to satisfy me.
- Are you happy with the current eight-page method of arbitration, and if not what changes would you like to see?
- On the one hand, the current arbitration method is very bulky and unwieldy. It requires a lot of attention to be paid to many disparate pages. That being said, changes in process have to be approached carefully.
- One problem with the existing method of arbitration is that it is open ended. We can make up motherhood-and-apple-pie reasons for this, and claim that it's a good thing, or we can admit that it is part of the structural problem of arbitration as it exists. It's damaging for all editors involved in an RFArb to sit around waiting for a decision for an unreasonably long period of time. One change I'd hope to promote is the idea that when an arbitration is accepted, it will be resolved and closed in a set period of time. If an issue is so contentious and complex that it can't be dealt with in a given, prespecified time period, then I'd say that that is an indication that either the people bringing the case, or the arbitrators, have not adequately defined the scope of the problem they are addressing. Yes, the large caseload is a big part of the problem, but it is possible for the ArbCom to adopt practices that limit their vulnerability in this regard. If elected, I'll try to make that happen. Nandesuka 22:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Follow-up question from Charles Stewart
Re. your comment that you think the ArbCom should take the wheel war case: the two reasons for taking a case that I can think of arte that wikipedia needs a disciplinary remedy to function, or WP needs to see judgement being made: eg. to establish a precedent. What value do you think hearing this case would serve? --- Charles Stewart 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- The Arbitration Committee exists to deal with the most serious disputes on Wikipedia. The claims in the case are not simply that there has been abuse of administrator privileges, but that there has been consistent and ongoing wheel warring, and that this is disruptive to the functioning of the encyclopedia. When credible claims are made that editors with administrator privileges are abusing those privileges, I think those claims need to be taken seriously and thoroughly investigated.
- I do believe that Wikipedia needs an arbitration committee that treats editors and admins equitably to function. Nandesuka 14:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):
- I am concerned about templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive. [1]
I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 20:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that this is a cause for concern. More fuly, I concur with Fred Bauder, who said "Not only is it a problem in itself, but the dispute over it is a problem with a vote on Templates for deletion to keep, followed by its deletion by those opposed to it." The community is currently developing a consensus on userboxes at Wikipedia:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes, and hopefully that discussion will yield useful guidelines.
- I think that to look to Arbcom to interpret policy on userboxes, therefore, premature, since the community is still trying to decide what the policy is. Arbcom is an instrumentality that fills in the gaps where policy and admins have failed, not a roving police force looking to substitute its judgment for that of Jimbo, or for the consensus of our editors and our admins. I can easily imagine cases where a user creates unambiguously offensive, violent personal attack userbox that should be deleted. Likewise, I can easily imagine cases where an admin declares that an innocuous or harmless userbox is a "personal attack" and uses that as a pretext to delete it. I have faith that the community will have the wherewithal to deal with both types of such antics in the appropriate manner; and Arbcom will be there to deal with the most egregious and persistent violators. Nandesuka 23:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I agree with you on petty abuses, but I'd like to see if we can focus on what another candidate described as the elephant in the room. Suppose you've been elected as an arbitrator and, in a case involving questions of community building and use of template space, you look at the workshop page and see the following proposed principle. What would be your comment as an arbitrator? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 00:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
1) "Our fundamental goal here is to write a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia, and our social rules are in service to this mission." [2] The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information to its readers. Although Wikipedia has a strong community of editors, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is primarily for its readers, and that the activities of the community must be dedicated to that purpose.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- As per unanimous decision (8-0) in the recent webcomics case. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
As Wikipedia expands, it is suffering growing pains. This has increased the stress and workload on its administrators. Every administrator wears two hats: that of editor, and that of janitor. As an editor, every admin has the same rights and responsibilities as every other editor. As a janitor, admins have more options available to them, and with those options come increased responsibility. Sometimes, when things are at their most stressful, administrators can confuse the two hats, and mistake the janitor hat for that of a "supereditor." When this occurs, unhappiness ensues.
Arbcom has the potential to deal with problems that are beyond the abilities of any one administrator. To realize that potential, Arbcom has to make two crucial decisions: they must choose which requests to consider, and they must choose which requests not to consider. I would submit that the act of deciding wisely which cases need to be heard is, in most cases, more important than the details of whatever decision is reached. The ability to provide stability and some degree of finality to the community by reaching a decision at all is what matters. This bears repeating: it is important that Arbcom not get bogged down considering cases that could easily be dealt with by community consensus, or by reasonable admins. It is likewise crucial that Arbcom not shy away from difficult cases, simply because they are ugly. Deciding where the line falls is where the hard work is.
People who consistently disrupt the encyclopedia and do not contribute much should be banned. But every editor has the absolute right to be treated with civility, even in the midst of disagreement. The one rule that it is never appropriate to ignore is civility. As an arbitrator, my very first concern will be examining requests brought by the community with seriousness, respect, and civility. I will strive to bring as much transparency to the process as I possibly can. Thanks. Nandesuka 06:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Questions from Sjakkalle
First, I would like to say that I was delighted to see your name pop up on the list of candidates as you are one of the most law-abiding, reasonable, polite but firm and articulate administrators who we have here. I have these questions for you:
- What motivated your decision to declare a "last minute" candidacy for the ArbCom?
- Thanks for your comments, and the compliments. I hope my answers to your questions do them justice.
- I have noticed a marked increase in discontent among editors recently, particularly among editors who have been here a long time, and who don't have a reputation for being disruptive, or incautious, or uncivil. Coupled with this, I see what appears to me to be a marked increase in wheel warring among administrators. My impression is that the current ArbCom is timid when it comes to addressing these issues. Note that I'm not speaking of what decisions the ArbCom reaches, but simply that they seem, as a rule, to not even want to address the cases. This is, of course, the ArbCom's privilege, but I think that this timidity will be harmful to the encyclopedia in the medium term. The perception among a growing number of non-admin editors is that there is no reasonable recourse to capricious and arbitrary administrator action. I don't believe that this perception is accurate, but it needs to be taken seriously. If good editors lose confidence in our ability to self-regulate, they will find another project to contribute their efforts to. I love Wikipedia, and if I can keep that from happening and help restore confidence by giving such complaints a fair hearing, I'll do so. Nandesuka 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- How much time do you expect to use on ArbCom cases per week? Are you prepared to sacrifice that time?
- If recent history is any guide, I will have to have cybernetic implants installed so that I can spend 24 hours a day reading and editing the encyclopedia. But to answer you seriously, I would estimate that I currently spend about 30 to 40 hours a month (so let's call it 8 to 9 hours a week, on average) editing the encyclopedia, currently, depending on other obligations. I expect at least half of that time to go to ArbCom, and presumably more in particularly urgent weeks. I'm prepared to sacrifice that time. Nandesuka 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Questions from brenneman
Many of the most active committee members are seeking to be appointed again. Thus I'd like to hear what you'd do differently from the existing commitee, to give us some reason to switch horses, so to speak. - brenneman (t) (c) 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you point to any requests for arbitration that were accepted or rejected where you would have recomeded the opposite course?
- I think the RFArb currently up for consideration re: wheel warring is a prime example of the sort of case that the Arbcom should be hearing, regardless of what decision they reach. But who knows: they may still accept it. I will think carefully about whether I want to grovel through the archives and name more specific examples. While I'm comfortable giving my opinion on whether a given case is or is not important, I want to avoid even the appearance of directly criticizing the current members, who I'm sure are acting in good faith. In fact, I'm comfortable naming the wheel warring RFArb precisely because it hasn't been accepted or rejected yet. But I'll think this over and see if I can figure out a way to point to an RFArb where, in my personal opinion, the wrong call was made, and refer to it in a way that does not give offense.
Nandesuka
22:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm quiet happy with this answer as it stands. It demonstrates enough care and thoughtfullness to satisfy me.
brenneman (t) (c) 03:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm quiet happy with this answer as it stands. It demonstrates enough care and thoughtfullness to satisfy me.
- Are you happy with the current eight-page method of arbitration, and if not what changes would you like to see?
- On the one hand, the current arbitration method is very bulky and unwieldy. It requires a lot of attention to be paid to many disparate pages. That being said, changes in process have to be approached carefully.
- One problem with the existing method of arbitration is that it is open ended. We can make up motherhood-and-apple-pie reasons for this, and claim that it's a good thing, or we can admit that it is part of the structural problem of arbitration as it exists. It's damaging for all editors involved in an RFArb to sit around waiting for a decision for an unreasonably long period of time. One change I'd hope to promote is the idea that when an arbitration is accepted, it will be resolved and closed in a set period of time. If an issue is so contentious and complex that it can't be dealt with in a given, prespecified time period, then I'd say that that is an indication that either the people bringing the case, or the arbitrators, have not adequately defined the scope of the problem they are addressing. Yes, the large caseload is a big part of the problem, but it is possible for the ArbCom to adopt practices that limit their vulnerability in this regard. If elected, I'll try to make that happen. Nandesuka 22:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Follow-up question from Charles Stewart
Re. your comment that you think the ArbCom should take the wheel war case: the two reasons for taking a case that I can think of arte that wikipedia needs a disciplinary remedy to function, or WP needs to see judgement being made: eg. to establish a precedent. What value do you think hearing this case would serve? --- Charles Stewart 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- The Arbitration Committee exists to deal with the most serious disputes on Wikipedia. The claims in the case are not simply that there has been abuse of administrator privileges, but that there has been consistent and ongoing wheel warring, and that this is disruptive to the functioning of the encyclopedia. When credible claims are made that editors with administrator privileges are abusing those privileges, I think those claims need to be taken seriously and thoroughly investigated.
- I do believe that Wikipedia needs an arbitration committee that treats editors and admins equitably to function. Nandesuka 14:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):
- I am concerned about templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive. [1]
I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 20:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that this is a cause for concern. More fuly, I concur with Fred Bauder, who said "Not only is it a problem in itself, but the dispute over it is a problem with a vote on Templates for deletion to keep, followed by its deletion by those opposed to it." The community is currently developing a consensus on userboxes at Wikipedia:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes, and hopefully that discussion will yield useful guidelines.
- I think that to look to Arbcom to interpret policy on userboxes, therefore, premature, since the community is still trying to decide what the policy is. Arbcom is an instrumentality that fills in the gaps where policy and admins have failed, not a roving police force looking to substitute its judgment for that of Jimbo, or for the consensus of our editors and our admins. I can easily imagine cases where a user creates unambiguously offensive, violent personal attack userbox that should be deleted. Likewise, I can easily imagine cases where an admin declares that an innocuous or harmless userbox is a "personal attack" and uses that as a pretext to delete it. I have faith that the community will have the wherewithal to deal with both types of such antics in the appropriate manner; and Arbcom will be there to deal with the most egregious and persistent violators. Nandesuka 23:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I agree with you on petty abuses, but I'd like to see if we can focus on what another candidate described as the elephant in the room. Suppose you've been elected as an arbitrator and, in a case involving questions of community building and use of template space, you look at the workshop page and see the following proposed principle. What would be your comment as an arbitrator? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 00:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
1) "Our fundamental goal here is to write a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia, and our social rules are in service to this mission." [2] The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information to its readers. Although Wikipedia has a strong community of editors, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is primarily for its readers, and that the activities of the community must be dedicated to that purpose.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- As per unanimous decision (8-0) in the recent webcomics case. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)