Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/FT2/Questions for the candidate

Note

I took a short break from question answering for a few days. I'll be back on it tonight (Thursday). Arbcom (if appointed) would be easy compared to the sheer amount of typing here and in the background, this last 5 weeks. If you're waiting for answers - thanks and I'll have them for you. FT2 (Talk 02:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Index

 * {| class="collapsible collapsed" style="font-size:88%;text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" width="90%"

! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | Index
 * 1) (I) (») What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committee? ... If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues?
 * 2) (user:east718) (») Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?
 * 3) (user:east718) (») Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why?
 * 4) (Wanderer57) (») 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?
 * 5) (Heimstern) (») 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?
 * 6) (Heimstern) (») What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?
 * 7) (Heimstern) (») 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 Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?
 * 8) (Heimstern) (») Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?
 * 9) (Heimstern) (») Two recent cases, Allegations of apartheid and 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?
 * 10) (Piotrus) (») Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?
 * 11) (Piotrus) (») If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?
 * 12) (Piotrus) (») Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer?
 * 13) (Piotrus) (») How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?
 * 14) (AniMate) (») 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?
 * 15) (Jd2718) (») [WITHDRAWN QUESTION, ANSWERED ALREADY:] To what degree (if at all) should ArbCom look at and treat administrators differently from non-administrators?
 * 16) (Jd2718) (») Disputes over nationalist conflicts involving multiple editors make up a large chunk of ArbCom business. Why? Do these topics, articles, or editors need to be treated differently in some way by ArbCom? by the community?
 * 17) (Jd2718) (») If you were granted the power to change exactly one WP rule, policy, guideline, or practice, would you? Which?
 * 18) (Jd2718) (») Can you point to a dispute (could have been at ArbCom or Mediation, or even on a talk page) that you've gone into (as an involved party or 3rd party) with a strong opinion, but had that opinion change in the course of discussion?
 * 19) (Jd2718) (») Why did you enter this significantly after nominations had opened? (I know it sounds accusatory, really isn't meant that way) Is the extended nomination period somehow unfair?
 * 20) (Jd2718) (») Without specific reference to yourself or other candidates, what qualities, characteristics, or experiences do you think we should be looking for in an arbitrator? Would you view a history of involvement in dispute resolution as an involved party to be a reason to consider a candidacy for ArbCom unfavorably?
 * 21) (Jd2718) (») Last year the community nominated what looked like a solid bunch of Arbitrators. Yet 10 months later it turns out that several had very spotty levels of ArbCom activity. Do you think that this was at all predictable? And if so, how?
 * 22) (Jd2718) (») I've seen it written that to be a good arbitrator, a WPian needs to first be a good editor. Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment? Do you distinguish between the relative importance of different types of WP work?
 * 23) (Jd2718) (») Are you 18? 38? 68? Are you a student? Do you have an occupation that lends itself to allowing you time to be involved in ArbCom?
 * 24) (Ragesoss) (») In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?
 * 25) (Cla68) (») 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?
 * 26) (Rschen7754) (») What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).
 * 27) (Rschen7754) (») What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) own articles or c) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * 28) (Rschen7754) (») Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
 * 29) (Rschen7754) (») What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
 * 30) (Rschen7754) (») In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
 * 31) (Ultraexactzz) (») What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? If you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be?
 * 32) (Risker) (») There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing. 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).
 * 33) (Blue Tie) (») Can/should Arbcom create wikipedia policy?  Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?
 * 34) (Blue Tie) (») Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member?
 * 35) (SilkTork) (») 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"?
 * 36) (Irpen) (») Who do you think should have access to the 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?
 * 37) (Irpen) (») what is your opinion about the parties (or anyone)  contacting arbitrators privately about a case? 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?
 * 38) (Irpen) (») 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?
 * 39) (Irpen) (») 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?
 * 40) (Dbuckner) (») Various
 * 41) (Haukur) (») ArbCom has the power to overrule any decision made by Jimbo in what he refers to as his "traditional capacity within Wikipedia". Under what circumstances would you overturn a decision made by Jimbo?
 * 42) (Mrs.EasterBunny) (») Many times, people running for WP office will cite a clear cut case of someone with bad editing and bad behavior. However, what if there is good editing and improper block (which would point to admin misconduct about content), followed by sock creation justified because the block was improper (which would point to editor misconduct about behavior)?  Does the first crime excuse the second?  Or is the second one crime much more serious and punishable?
 * 43) (Irpen) (») The historical precedents suggest that Jimbo may appoint not strictly according to votes, but more to his liking. If this happens again in this election and, hypothetically, you would be the candidate promoted over the head of another candidate who got the higher support, would you accept such promotion? Also, would you accept the election result in general if the candidates that are switched are both below your level of support that is such switch would not affect your own promotion?
 * 44) (Wbfergus) (») [WITHDRAWN QUESTION:] Policy page scenario (various)
 * 45) (Pinkville) (») 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?
 * 46) (Blue Tie) (») Late question: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they?
 * }
 * 1) (Blue Tie) (») Late question: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they?
 * }

(1) what's wrong with arbitration? What will you do about it?
What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committee? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? I (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, a good question to start with. FT2 (Talk 06:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(2) do cases take too long? Or do they make mistakes? What will you do?
Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?


 * }

(3) cases failed or disagreed with
Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why? Thanks, east. 718 at 06:20, November 21, 2007


 * Thanks for a couple of good questions! FT2 (Talk 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(4) user RFC fairness
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?


 * (Just to be clear. Some candidates wondered if my question was "aimed at them". I'm asking all candidates the same generic question; it is not aimed at anyone.)

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a good question! If you want my comment on any specific case/s, just ask :)


 * FT2 (Talk 05:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern
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.

(5) edit warriors
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?


 * Re. Vintagekits and the "Troubles" ArbCom case, that was me who approached FT2. As VintageKits' blocking admin, I wanted to give him one final chance. Given his record I felt there were few admins who could work with him despite his flames, and also understand the need to protect the community. It didn't go ahead in the end, though - Alis o n  ? 05:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(6) uncivil editors
2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?

(7) use of desysopping
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 Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

(8) appeal of community ban
4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?

(9) cases without conclusions
5. Two recent cases, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and 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) 04:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome - and nitty-gritty's fine :) Some good questions there, and highly relevant.


 * Two pages you might also find relevant are WP:DBF (2005), which captures some views on the borderline between intense but positive editing, and problem editing/edit warring, and is still pretty much as it was back then, and User:FT2/RfA, which summarizes my feelings on what I'd look for in administrators (perspectives more than criteria) and which is relevant as my general feelings on sysophood. Two optional pages if you fancy.


 * Thanks once again :) FT2 (Talk 02:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(10) arbitrator activity
Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?

(11) arbitrator involvement in discussion pages
If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?

(12) should some editors be considered 'more equal' than others?
Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer?

Each person will have a different answer to that one, but it's a perspective that may be more amenable to resolution than the original one.

Parallel in 'real life' - This question parallels the classic management question of task v. people orientation. The classic answer is both are needed: - the long term quality of the project is risked if we place the task too high above the relationships and allow a perception that good contributions justify any behavior... and the quality is also risked if we place the relationships too high above the task and completely ignore the productive work being done.

Unsurprising since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (task and output) made possible by a community (relationships and editorial environment), both are crucial.

Whilst either approach can work well in the short term, good long term results require both, not just one. Noteably, whether online or in "real life", a focus on results only at the cost of ignoring the cultural effect is unsustainable, and usually leads to failure long term anyhow.

Community consensus - There is strong precedent that Arbcom and individual arbcom members have expressed a view that higher standards are expected of (for example) administrators. See (7) above for clear and multiple examples. But for the general case of experienced users rather than admins, there is also an indication that major exceptions are not made for established users (although a longer history of ongoing conduct may occur before anything more than talk happens), and that user parity is important.

For example, over the years Wikipedia has now existed, not one policy related to any conduct matter has ever gained a section or even a footnote that notes established users have more leeway to breach conduct norms or a lower standard to meet - clear evidence that this view may be somewhat widespread, but has not in fact gained communal endorsement. Instead, policies such as WP:NPA suggest that what has been accepted as consensus is that behaviors such as disparaging comments and personal attacks are seen as harmful and aren't ever acceptable.

The community is still noticeably reluctant or divided about how to tackle this question, and when established editors' conduct is raised as problematic on some occasion, in many cases nothing significant has happened beyond talk, for quite a long time. Thus what is actually evidenced is a communal principle that such conduct is never to be allowed, combined with a communal hesitancy to "dive in" without consideration. The combination is worth noting.

Personal views - As is well evidenced, I have been fairly willing to disagree with a view that some class of users get automatic preferential rights to act poorly and breach norms, via a double standard. In essence, one standard for all seems the expectation to me.

That's for many reasons. In general, it's difficult to find a good justification that an offensive comment, attack, sarcastic retort, or harmful accusation, somehow will become any less damaging to the community because it's posted by (say) an established editor of 5000 edits, than a newcomer of 50. In fact it may be more so - the established user carries weight in their view, and what they say may be more widely attended to (or in some cases, perhaps role modelled), they can play the system or count on support if they choose and know how to do so to better effect, they can make others look worse than they might fairly be, and so on.

There is also the tendency for large communities to develop cliques and hierachies, and a problematic clique would would be highly damaging to the activity, community and perception of the project - it's a major "negative" perception and issue. A common feature of such cliques is that some people are perceived to be "abiove the norms" - they can breach norms and not be expected to change or be questioned. Unlike previous examples, this is not a valid reason to treat people differently. We give established editors some leeway because it's for the best for the project, and because judgement says it may be sufficient, not because of some clique within which criticism is somehow not allowed.

Also, crucially, some editors receiving incivility may be valid present or future contributors who simply have different views, or tried to help and got backlashed, or have thin skins. Not every contributor can handle insults without retorting back. I'm not willing to dismiss this and say "that's just their problem".

Example - However, given that good conduct is required, how that good behavior is obtained may differ. The aim is always to benefit the project, and in some cases, this requires careful thought. I tend to try resolution before blocks and sanctions, and as a rule, established users can be reasoned with.

By way of example, a new user who breaches 3RR over a content issue will almost without fail (and uncontroversially) be blocked under that policy, for the incident. The purpose is not punishment; it is to firmly deter one type of edit warring. A few months ago, a respected editor breached 3RR in a matter that's still well remembered (no names, the case is discussed in general only). What action then, will best help the project in future? Two themes came up in discussion:


 * Block? - but to what purpose? The user knew the matter, it is unlikely to influence their future choices, they are confirmed not a regular edit warrior (!)... would blocking actually be of any help? Would it cause them to realize that norms really did apply to them too? Or would it be a case of just trying to make a point?


 * Don't block? (Overlook) - but with what example being set? Can we demand users not edit war then allow a respected administrator to freely do so, in a way that communal norms specify is never, ever okay, and do nothing?

In fact what I opted for was that the best interest of the project was to ask them to confirm it wouldn't happen again, and to explain that if it did, action might happen (because if it were ongoing, this would be a problem). That is not a means of handling within 3RR, but in my judgement it was the action most likely to resolve the concerns for the future. There was no reply, but I have no doubt the view was read, and the behavior for whatever reasons, has not repeated. If it did, then maybe a different decision would happen, but I lack a crystal ball to know that for sure.

Footnote: stance of Jimmy Wales - I have not sought to rely on the words of Jimmy Wales on this subject, although he has spoken about it. More on that here...

Argumentum ad Jimbum is an approach that has its supporters and detractors. I am going to forego this view on this occasion, since
 * 1) The community seems able to solve problems and make up its own mind in many cases,
 * 2) The community gains benefit by having to make up its own mind, even if this is difficult and heated at times (parallels how sometimes good NPOV articles can result from argument by editors with strong views), and
 * 3) It would be fairly disturbing and a sign of poor operation of our dispute handling processes if arbitrators (15 of our most experienced dispute handling editors out of many thousands) were still unable to make up their own minds on cases without relying on "Jimbo said".

In simple terms, I think we're more than able to learn as a community how we want to run in order to best produce encyclopedic content, and if not, we should be :) It is in this community's long term interest to do so.

If Jimmy acts, so be it and that is his complete prerogative. But where Jimmy has not chosen to act with executive rights, the discussion is best resolved by reference to our established norms and process, and if that's a difficult call sometimes - that's what Arbcom are there for. Ultimately, the Wikipedia community is almost entirely self-governing now, in almost every way, and that means Committee members must be able and willing to play their role in its operation by actually making - and standing by - their own decisions on the conducts that reach Arbitration. That's commonsense.

That said, for those who do want insight into Jimmy's view, his stated stance has consistently been - roughly speaking - that He has also stipulated that should he and Arbcom disagree in certain cases (bans in this instance), then Arbcom's view will be deferred to.
 * 1) Editing is a privilege not a right, and earned by good conduct,
 * 2) A congenial editing environment based on civility is crucial (words such as "sincere loving good behavior in and out" have been used), but
 * 3) Editors who genuinely and habitually engage in disruptive behavior should be expected to change or depart, even if their encyclopedic work is otherwise very productive.
 * }
 * }

(13) civility enforcement
How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(14) mainspace contributions
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 12:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * }
 * }


 * Disability Assistance Dogs Series (September / October 2007)


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Article !! Work done !! Links !! Notes
 * Orca (dog) || Rewrite || b a diff || Research + rewrite.
 * PDSA Gold Medal || General || b a diff || Research, update main text, format and style.
 * Endal || Rewrote || b a diff || Research and rewrite almost all over time.
 * }
 * Endal || Rewrote || b a diff || Research and rewrite almost all over time.
 * }
 * }


 * September 2007


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Article !! Work done !! Links !! Notes
 * Annie Duke || Refactor to remove "puff" || b a diff || Initial article link-farmed and poor design. Research + fix.
 * Hasan Akbar case || BLP/NPOV/Dispute || b a diff || Heavily disputed, help requested, how should bio be written, and what about others involved? Rewrote focusing on event not person (BLP1E), as article on the case.
 * Kevin Eggan || Rewrite || b a diff || Rewrite "puff" bio of researcher, focus on notable matters rather than "what he might do".
 * Labrador Retriever || Authored + GA || GA comments || Wrote during past year, including much research on history, demographics, genetics etc. Submitted & rated GA in September.
 * List of Labrador Retrievers || Authored || new || Authored and sourced images; future Featured List.
 * Watership Down (film) || Refactor || b a diff || Very long plot, refactor. Feedback.
 * A Man Called Horse (1970 film) || Quality || b a diff || Article now captures perspectives of the film, not just plot rehash.
 * }
 * List of Labrador Retrievers || Authored || new || Authored and sourced images; future Featured List.
 * Watership Down (film) || Refactor || b a diff || Very long plot, refactor. Feedback.
 * A Man Called Horse (1970 film) || Quality || b a diff || Article now captures perspectives of the film, not just plot rehash.
 * }
 * A Man Called Horse (1970 film) || Quality || b a diff || Article now captures perspectives of the film, not just plot rehash.
 * }
 * }


 * July / August 2007


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Article !! Work done !! Links !! Notes
 * Chris Langham || NPOV/BLP || b a diff || Current court case section.
 * Comparison of computer form factors || Authored || diff || Noticed absence in passing.
 * Dam || Collaborative || b a || Collaborative session. Main contributions - designed/refactored article, updated 'power', added new sections on dam creation.
 * Journalistic scandal || Refactor || b a diff || Help requested. Moved US-specific section to new article, restructure article focused on its subject, and leave for regular editors.
 * Krav Maga || Refactor || b a diff || Rewrote "principles" and "levels" sections, tabulate data sections, various other refactors.
 * List of dam failures || Authored || new || Prompted by work on dam. Much research needed.
 * Locus of control || Intro || b a diff || Simple intro rewrite
 * North East Wales Institute of Higher Education || Review/cleanup || b a diff || Request to review a user's article. Feedback.
 * Stalin's speech on August 19, 1939 || NPOV/dispute || b a diff || Help requested: Article name & approach for an alleged speech. Rewrote to contextualize within historians' dispute, plus historical information. Unusual one!
 * }
 * }
 * List of dam failures || Authored || new || Prompted by work on dam. Much research needed.
 * Locus of control || Intro || b a diff || Simple intro rewrite
 * North East Wales Institute of Higher Education || Review/cleanup || b a diff || Request to review a user's article. Feedback.
 * Stalin's speech on August 19, 1939 || NPOV/dispute || b a diff || Help requested: Article name & approach for an alleged speech. Rewrote to contextualize within historians' dispute, plus historical information. Unusual one!
 * }
 * }
 * Stalin's speech on August 19, 1939 || NPOV/dispute || b a diff || Help requested: Article name & approach for an alleged speech. Rewrote to contextualize within historians' dispute, plus historical information. Unusual one!
 * }
 * }

(15) withdrawn by user, answered already
[WITHDRAWN QUESTION:] To what degree (if at all) should ArbCom look at and treat administrators differently from non-administrators?


 * Answered at # 7, above, thank you. Jd2718 22:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(16) nationalism edit wars
Disputes over nationalist conflicts involving multiple editors make up a large chunk of ArbCom business. Why? Do these topics, articles, or editors need to be treated differently in some way by ArbCom? by the community?

(17) changes to policies, rules, and practices
Views/experience: If you were granted the power to change exactly one WP rule, policy, guideline, or practice, would you? Which?

(18) open-mindedness in disputes
Can you point to a dispute (could have been at ArbCom or Mediation, or even on a talk page) that you've gone into (as an involved party or 3rd party) with a strong opinion, but had that opinion change in the course of discussion?


 * }
 * }

(19) late nomination
Electing arbitrators:

Why did you enter this significantly after nominations had opened? (I know it sounds accusatory, really isn't meant that way) Is the extended nomination period somehow unfair?


 * And thanks for the opportunity to clarify :)


 * FT2 (Talk 05:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(20) qualities and experiences for arbitration
Without specific reference to yourself or other candidates, what qualities, characteristics, or experiences do you think we should be looking for in an arbitrator? Would you view a history of involvement in dispute resolution as an involved party to be a reason to consider a candidacy for ArbCom unfavorably?

(21) arbcom patchiness
Last year the community nominated what looked like a solid bunch of Arbitrators. Yet 10 months later it turns out that several had very spotty levels of ArbCom activity. Do you think that this was at all predictable? And if so, how?

(22) relative importance of different roles and editing experience
You:

I've seen it written that to be a good arbitrator, a WPian needs to first be a good editor. Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment? Do you distinguish between the relative importance of different types of WP work?

(23) age and availability
Are you 18? 38? 68? Are you a student? Do you have an occupation that lends itself to allowing you time to be involved in ArbCom?

Thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome :) Some good food for thought there!


 * FT2 (Talk 06:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(24) npov and spov
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (Updated to rewrite description in 2nd part in a lot more detail, and also clarify a point: )

(25) 'sleuthing' email list
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) 00:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(26) highway related disputes
What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).

(27) and (28) purpose and purview of wikiprojects
a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) own articles or c) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?

b) Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)

(29) canvassing
a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?

(30) vandalism and 'good faith but horrible edits'
a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?


 * }

(31) arbitrator traits, and essence in one word
Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.

Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.

Needless to say, it did not go well.

However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(32) protection of policy pages
There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing. 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)
 * (2 x line breaks added - FT2)


 * }


 * Thanks for an interesting question!


 * I enjoyed that one :)


 * FT2 (Talk 07:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(33) and (34) arbcom and policy creation
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 13:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(35) how would you vote on this proposal
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 17:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Irpen
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.

(36) arbcom mailing list access
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?
 * (line break added - FT2)

(37) secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators
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?
 * (line break added - FT2)

(38) arbcom recusals and access to discussion
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?
 * (line break x 2 added - FT2)

(39) community oversight over the arbitration policy
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?

(40) Questions from Dbuckner

 * Note: The questioner has recently been blocked for smears, "trolling" (as described by others'), personal attack, personal attack against another administrator, and bad faith activities in connection with this election. In other words, good faith may not be the best basis to understand these questions and their context. Nonetheless the questions will be answered - but it's unclear if they were genuinely asked, or merely a coat-rack and attempt to find some basis for smearing, as described' by one respected administrator. - FT2
 * Please stop the bullying tone ('respected administrator' and all that). The questions are all on the same theme, namely extremely POV, anti-scientific, cult and 'lifestyle' editing disguised as NPOV.  Stop bullying.  I lost my cool once, I apologised, leave it there.  edward (buckner) (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(41) Overruling Jimbo
I'm asking the following of the current top 10 frontrunners in the race.

ArbCom has the power to overrule any decision made by Jimbo in what he refers to as his "traditional capacity within Wikipedia". Under what circumstances would you overturn a decision made by Jimbo?

This isn't meant as a trick question - I would be perfectly happy with a simple answer like "I'd consider overruling a decision he made if I thought it was a bad one". But if you'd like to go into more depth or consider some past Jimbo decisions as examples then I'm fine with that too. Haukur 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (line break added - FT2)

(42) content vs. conduct
As a member of ArbCom, would you place more emphasis on content or behavior? For example, in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds case, there is voluminous discussion on whether SevenofDiamonds is really NuclearUmpf, but no discussion on what got NuclearUmpf banned in the first place. If SevenofDiamonds=NuclearUmpf, then this is a behavioral problem but doesn't have to be a content problem. If SevenofDiamonds edit was reasonable (I have not researched it) would it make a difference?

The above may not be the best example but it's one that I recently saw because I can't remember the parties involved in similar cases. On occasion, I have seen an editing admin block someone because of a dispute in editing an article that both of them are editing and the block seemed questionable because there is no overt POV. The blocked editor then probably feels the block is unjustified and creates a sock. Many times, people running for WP office will cite a clear cut case of someone with bad editing and bad behavior.

However, what if there is good editing and improper block (which would point to admin misconduct about content), followed by sock creation justified because the block was improper (which would point to editor misconduct about behavior)? Does the first crime excuse the second? Or is the second one crime much more serious and punishable? (This is not an easy answer because excusing the first crime by the admin would tend to increase the workload of ArbCom because it allows admin to do a lot with less oversight. However, excusing the second crime might seem to encourage socks).

Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (2 x new lines added - FT2)

(43) arbcom election process
I am asking this question to top ten candidates as of 02:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

The final results of elections may or may not fully reflect the community support expressed by the vote tally but are subjected to Jimbo's approval, that is he makes the decision taking the community's opinion expressed during the election only "under advisement". Although it may seem a surprise to many, Jimbo is free to not follow the tallies and he may not necessarily appoint the top slice of the candidates according to their approval percentage. The historical precedents suggest that he may again appoint not strictly according to votes, that is skip the candidate with higher percentage of support in favor of the candidates with less approval rating but more to his liking (or if you want to be less cynical, the candidate on who community is making a "mistake that Jimbo would correct.")
 * Jimbo's decisions vs the community support

If this happens again in this election and, hypothetically, you would be the candidate promoted over the head of another candidate who got the higher support, would you accept such promotion? Also, would you accept the election result in general if the candidates that are switched are both below your level of support that is such switch would not affect your own promotion? --Irpen 02:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(44) withdrawn by user
[WITHDRAWN QUESTION, SEE BELOW:] What is your position on the following?
 * A policy page has had a very active discussion for many months. All sides (loosely termed 'pro-change', 'anti-change' and 'issue-specific') of proposed changes have made their cases back and forth numerous times. The 'pro-change' group is mainly users, with a few Admins. The 'anti-change' group is mainly Admins (including those who helped write the policy over the years) and a few users. The 'issue-specific' group is a mixed collection of users and Admins, but mainly users. All three groups constitute around 40-50 people total, per announcements on the Village Pump and related policies, to garner more widespread community involvement either way.
 * 1) After numerous discussions, and comments over a span of several days to several weeks on specific issues, what should constitute a consensus? 60%, 75%, 90%, or unanimous approval?
 * 2) If around 75% agree to a change, is it appropriate for Admins (especially those who helped write the policy) to revert changes and protect the page from further edits against their approval?
 * 3) Is it appropriate for 6 or 7 Admins to more or less block changes to a policy through protection and reverts, when very active discussions have been ongoing and the majority of those participating constructively (not just saying "No" or "Oppose" without constructive comments) agree to changes?
 * 4) Would it be appropriate for such a policy page which does clearly have a disputed section to have a tag in that section stating that section is under dispute and to participate on the talk page?
 * 5) Should policies solely dictate acceptable and unacceptable content, behaviour, etc., or should they also define Wikipedia-specific terms and definitions (without stating so) that conflict with usage in different disciplines, or should such terms and definitions be more appropriately suited in a guideline linked to and from the policy?
 * 6) Do you agree that policies are meant for enforcement or 'enforceable actions', while guidelines are meant to give guidance?


 * For the record, I feel that I need to close my questions to all candidates, as one of the editors in the above 'subject' has filed an ArbCom request. As such, it could be interpreted as unseemly or whatever for these issues to be addressed in this forum. I was in the process of cancelling my questions and replying in an RfC and the related ArbCom request when I had to leave to take my wife to a Dr. appointment, so pardon the delay in cancelling this. wbfergus undefinedTalk 21:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(45) decision making and the wikipedia comunity
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) 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(46) emails and irc log publication
Sorry that this is so late

Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they --Blue Tie (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)