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

Questions from east718 (answered)
1. (a) Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases?  1. (b) Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks?  1. (c) Either way, what will you do to remedy it?

2. (a) Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with?  2. (b) How about some proposals that actually passed?  3. (c) 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 11:36, November 27, 2007

'1 (a) Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? '

There is no firm timeline for the entire process as time required for the gathering of evidence and user statements can be quite variable. However, once that process is completed there have certainly been cases where the time taken to reach a consensus could be deemed unreasonable - Requests_for_arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson is a recent case that appears to be so. A cursory glance indicates it took at least 23 days between the closure of evidence and the formation of a proposed opinion (final decision was swiftly reached after that, fortunately). As far as I can tell this is due to lack of participation by arbitrators in some cases. The internal arbitration procedure needs to allow for automatic recusion of arbitrators who fail to participate in an assessment in a timely manner. Having said that, I know a lot of ArbCom work goes unseen - an ArbCom member may have had to read 100,000 words of furious invective in order to write a four line opinion.

1 (b) Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks?

I have only thoroughly reviewed perhaps 25% of all ArbCom cases, but I cannot think of an example where the final outcome was not reasonable in my opinion. A number of ArbCom cases have been quite huge in scope as well, and it am loathe to rush in and make hasty pronouncements without having given the matter as much time as the ArbCom members have. In the case where a poor decision may have been made (eg. Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2, it appears that the ArbCom committee has been able to self-correct.

The ArbCom of 2007 has considerable advantages over the ArbCom of 2004, as many of the "shared beliefs/attitudes" of that era have since been converted to fundamental principles. Hence the guidelines of conduct and procedure are now thoroughly documented, and there are few cases where the exact meaning of a policy arises as a topic of major debate or examination. (In the early days this was not the case, and I can only reflect painfully on some of the incidents which led to terms like "wikilawyer" getting coined. How Mav ever stayed sane amazes me).

I do however have the attitude that the ArbCom resorts to heavy-handedness (banning, etc) a bit more often than is necessary. As a general principle I will give people credit for being "dumb" (in a specific circumstance) as opposed to "evil". (This is an extension of "assume good faith" which applies to arbitrators as much, if not more, than anyone else.)

Few trolls and miscreants ever turn up at ArbCom, as they are easily dealt with. The majority of ArbCom hearings involve "axegrinders" with a deep emotional investment in their topic. Certainly some of these users have no interest in the 'pedia outside of their topic, however others are actually highly constructive editors once they are removed from certain subject areas. (I'll refrain from naming names although several spring to mind).

Hence I have long believed that there are alternative remedies which can be used in such circumstances. These include "restraining orders" (banning people from editing specific pages) and "rehabilitation" (assigning users to stewardship over unrelated, neutral articles that are in need of improvement). I don't think ArbCom has considered such options frequently enough. An editor under a restraining order and assigned to stewardship might simply leave anyway, but this is preferable to them being banned outright in my opinion.

1 (c) Either way, what will you do to remedy it?

My answer is encapsulated in my previous two answers above.

'2. (a) Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? ' 2. (b) How about some proposals that actually passed?  3. (c) 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?

With the exception of my comments about "heavy-handedness" above, my general answer is no. The principles of WP are so well established, and they have not changed in essence since the first day when Larry and Jimbo laid them all down. In each case I have reviewed thus far the ArbCom findings were thoroughly predictable after reviewing the evidence.

If I were to find a case where I did disagree with the outcome, my first inclination would essentially be to assume good faith on behalf of ArbCom itself. I am familiar with most of the members of ArbCom throughout it's history and would need considerable to evidence to convince me good faith did not apply. Furthermore, after reviewing several cases from the earlier days, it is apparent that the documented ArbCom process sometimes only scratched the surface of the entire issue and that the decision was (in reality) based on evidence covering (in one particular case) years of misconduct.

ArbCom is not a flawless process, nor can it ever be expected to be. But I believe it to be very good, and what improvements it needs are minor.

Question from Wanderer57 (answered)
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) 16:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC's are something I basically approve of, and in most cases the outcome is fair to all parties. Many will go there looking for outright vindication and be disappointed, but in general fairness seems to prevail. (For the record, in six years of WP involvement I have never been involved in an RFC. In my very early days I got myself caught up in some edit wars, but I long ago learned that there is ALWAYS another article somewhere to work on.)

My position is that the ultimate purpose of an RFC is to benefit the 'pedia, and not the specific parties to a dispute. For this reason I dislike using the terms "accused" and "plaintiff" when it comes to RFCs. From long experience whenever I read an RFC concerning users I am not personally familiar with, I tend to assume equal culpability for all parties (plaintiffs and defendants) until the evidence persuades me otherwise.

RFC's are at their best when a degree of calmness is restored and this has happened on numerous occasions. Often the mere instigation of an RFC is enough to get the concerned parties to calm down. The chief cause of escalating disputes on WP is axe-grinding - people with high degrees of emotional attachment to the subject in dispute. Hence RFC's are at their best when they manage to calm the waters. Sometimes there is a happy outcome - everyone agrees to behave in a civil fashion. Other times one or more editors will "quit in disgust". (A sidenote: While I always hate to see good editors go, I am a subscriber to the "greater good" philosophy.)

The chief drawback to RFC's is the "anyone can comment" element, obviously. The people who will be most motivated to participate in any given RFC are those already with an emotional investment in the issue, and in some cases the edit war on the talk pages merely relocates to the RFC. But there are enough good outcomes to justify the process.

Question from I (answered)
'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) 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have effectively answered these questions in my earlier response to East718 above. Please feel free to ask additional questions or to ask for clarification on any point however.Manning (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Risker (answered)
'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)'

I may have an unpopular viewpoint here, but I'll express it anyway. I have long been of the opinion that all policies on WP should be completely locked and not subject to editing by anyone, including admins within the WP itself. Development of policy should only ever be conducted at Meta.

Updating of policies on WP should only be conducted by Bureaucrats or higher. Policies should be released from meta on a scheduled basis, and I would also like to see version numbers attached to the locked releases at WP.

However I support completely freeform and robust argument and debate over at Meta, as well as the creation of any number of alternative drafts. From the earliest days I have felt strongly that as much as possibly the focus at WP should be articles and the writing thereof, and this attitude is reflected is the official charter of Meta (see Item 1).

I suspect one reason people don't like moving policy debates over to Meta is that it is much lower profile and they "won't get noticed as much". IMHO this is all the more reason for doing it - the ones who truly care about policy will make the effort and the troublemakers will not be as motivated.

I'm not saying that there should be zero discussion of policy on WP - I have no issue with the Village Pump for example. But hammering out new versions of policies is what Meta was created for, and I would like to restore it to that purpose. Policies on WP should be locked completely.

As a sidenote, let me quote from Jimbo's Statement of Principles: ''6. The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward, not inward at the Wikipedia itself.''Manning (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754 (answered)

 * 1) What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).
 * 2) 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?
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
 * 5) 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?

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

In each case I completely agree with the outcome. The ArbCom sought to achieve calm, peaceful consensus in a circumstance where there was no absolutely clear-cut solution, and numerous parties with charged emotions. Similar disputes go back to the dawn of the 'pedia. I note that the ArbCom applied provisional penalties and only exercised disciplinary action when those provisions were broken.

'2a. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?'

I created the Wikiproject concept, and I still think my original argument for it stands. (You can read the original proposal here.)

'2b. Do you believe that WikiProjects own articles?' '2c. Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?'

Unfortunately I must reject the premise of the questions. A Wikiproject is a data framework and nothing more. A group of editors who use a Wikiproject to work together can form a de facto subcommunity with WP, certainly and I think this is what you actually mean.

So the question becomes "can a subcommunity of editors with a shared consensus impose their will on an article within the Wikipedia?"

The answer is of course "yes" - this is a logical consequence of the "anyone can edit" axiom of the entire project. Sure it's not particularly fun when you disagree with (yet are not able to change) the consensus viewpoint, but that's life. There are always other articles to edit.

'3. 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)'

See my answer to Q2.

'4. What is your definition of canvassing? Does it include project newsletters or IRC?'

As a general rule, any editor can attempt to garner support for any viewpoint via any means, so long as it is done in good faith, and other editors are not denied peaceful dissent. However once a firm policy has been established, the dissenter has the burden of ethically persuading the community to an alternative consensus viewpoint. Many of the problems that occur in WP revolve around people who disagree with a consensual viewpoint, and persist in trying to change it via unacceptable means (Socks, meat, Edit Wars, and the various methods outlined in WP:CANVASS). I am a major proponent of "There are always other articles to edit".

'4. 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?'

I'm not entirely sure how "vandalism" and "good faith" fit into the same sentence. Regardless, there is no blanket answer to this - every case is individual. I can concoct scenarios where the response should be very passive, and others where the response should be almost draconian. Assume good faith is my guide, naturally.

Question from Ultraexactzz (answered)
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 16:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I assure you that I gave this serious thought, but I could not find an answer that satisfied me. I'd need a word that combines, justice, passion, diplomacy, patience, calmness and rigour.Manning (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure what that word would be, but I think you gave me a good answer nonetheless. Thanks, and good luck! ZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern (answered)
My questions are kind of nitty-gritty, but I'm not looking for really specific answers as much as trying to see your thought process and approaches to the issues.

1. What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate?

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

3. When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

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

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) 05:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern - thank you for asking such insightful questions. I'm not going to attempt to answer them seperately, because it seems to me that you have essentially asked for my overall philosophy on the purpose of the ArbCom, and my personal categorisation of the cases that come before it. You have distinguished between edit warriors, uncivil editors and errant admins, but to me they are all various cases of "editors behaving badly". ArbCom is often called upon to make a judgement as to whether or not these are "good editors behaving badly" or "bad editors behaving badly", and to try and get all parties concerned to get back to being aligned with the core values of the Wikipedia project.

With regard to your question #5: the Apartheid case is (in my opinion) far from an ArbCom failure. I'd be delighted if EVERY ArbCom case ended with the community realising they have sorted (or can sort) their dispute out on their own. In reality at least 99.9% of all Wikipedia disputes resolve themselves this way, which is one of the astounding aspects of the Wikipedia universe.

The sad truth is that the cases which ultimately do come before ArbCom usually focus on the worst manifestations of behaviour within the editorial community, and this behaviour usually originates in a strong emotional attachment to the issue. What makes ArbCom a challenge is that your "routine" difficult editor (a persistent vandal or a blatant troll) is basically never involved. (Such people are easily identified and any admin is empowered to deal with them.)

The people involved in ArbCom disputes are (almost without exception) knowledgable and intelligent people, who are simply highly emotional (and - dare I say it - often irrational) about the issue at hand. (Ed Poor and 24 were both astoundingly bright, I assure you, despite the endless chaos they caused.)

So I divide these people into three general categories, based on how they perceive the entire Wikipedia project. When I begin to assess a case, I am personally trying to determine what sort of person I am dealing with, as that will influence my attitude on what actions to take.

1 - Editors who believe in the overall Wikipedia ethos and who *could* be tremendous assets to the project, if (and only if) they could stop grinding their axe over this specific issue (or issues). 2 - Editors who really don't care about the overall Wikipedia project, and are here merely because they are extremely passionate about this specific subject. 3 - Editors who have a deep-seated issue regarding the overall project, and who are committed to causing maximum disruption to the project in any area (for whatever reason). A hallmark of this class of editor is the degree of disruptive involvement in policy discussions. (In my opinion there hasn't been a single substantial change to any policy since 2001, so the fact that people get so caught up in them constantly amazes me).

So it is that classification which governs a lot of my thinking regarding what action to take. (Determining which category an individual editor belongs to takes a lot of research and consideration, of course.) Editors in category 1 are people for whom I would seek to find some form of positive rehabilitation, such as restricting them from editing in the subject which is causing such drama. I treat people in category 2 the same, although my experience is that they usually leave the project once they have been restricted from editing in their pet subject area. Only people in category 3 are ones I for whom I would consider punitive action.

Regarding a community ban, anyone can ask for parole, and under most cases I would consider it, assuming the banned user outlines a clear objective of a change in behaviour, and demonstrates a willingness to commit to Wikipedia policies. A Parole would have very specific conditions (total restrictions on certain subject areas, or contact with specific users, etc) and a single violation would reinstate the ban. But I will always lean towards providing opportunities for rehabilitation where possible. A sample rehabilitative approach which I would like to see applied is to assign an editor a substantial caseload of specific articles to work on before agreeing to review the terms of their restrictions. (Of course another circumstance for review would be where it has been demonstrated that the legitimacy of the community ban is questionable).

In regard to a case where the ArbCom could not achieve a consensus, I would be surprised if that was truly unachievable. In many ways it is easier nowadays than it was three years ago, as the policies have been fleshed out to a much greater extent, and the degree of uncertainty about how a policy applies to a given situation is far less. (There is also an extensive history of prior cases to refer back to). Dissent will certainly occur on occasion, but a key attribute of any ArbCom member is the ability to peacfully and cooperatively accept a consensus viewpoint even though they disagree with it.

As far as the DavidShankBone case, the outcome wasn't ideal, but then there is no point for ArbCom to pursue a case where the judgement has been rendered meaningless by the withdrawal of a relevant party.

I hope this answers your questions to your satisfaction. Regards Manning :)

Question from Blue Tie (answered)
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 13:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie - thanks for your questions.

'1a. Can Arbcom create wikipedia policy? '

All policy creation is a community-based activity and it always has been. Hence ArbCom as a body cannot create policy. ArbCom is, however, empowered to interpret policy as it is relevant to specific cases, as per its charter.

'1b. Can Arbcom develop a proposed policy for community vote?'

Nothing prevents (or should prevent) individual ArbCom members working together to create a policy. But in this regard they are no different to any other group of editors. Of course this process should be conducted in a public forum, and any and all other editors are free to participate. ArbCom only has authority when it has convened to review a case. Otherwise the ArbCom members are simply other editors.

I would disapprove VERY strongly of any attempt to develop policy via anything other than standard "public" means (and this applies to anyone on Wikipedia - not just ArbCom members).

As a sidenote - I'd personally prefer to see policy development occur exclusively over at Meta rather than WP (as per Jimbo's original Statement of Principles), but that doesn't impact the core idea of "public" policy development.

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member?

As an arbitrator, no.

As an editor I am (of course) equally free to participate in the policy creation process. The point is that being a member of ArbCom would not grant me any additional rights/power in this regard.

It is important to understand that ArbCom has authority as a collective, but individually a member of ArbCom has no special rights/privileges over those of any other editor.

I hope these answers are satisfactory, please feel free to expand or clarify as you see fit. Manning 14:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

questions from jd2718 (answered)
Jd2718 02:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Where would you place nationalist disputes in your discussion of edit warriors, (answers to Heimstern, above)? Do these disputes, editors, or articles need some different sort of treatment from ArbCom?
 * 2) Can you imagine a circumstance under which ArbCom would be compelled to examine the conduct of Jimbo Wales?
 * 3) Parties often arrive to ArbCom "unequal" and with different areas of work in the encyclopedia. I mean to say, new editor, experienced editor, vandal patroller, good article writer, new admin, image person, categorizer, etc. Is there built-in conflict in producing an all-volunteer 'pedia with so many different roles? And more specifically, should admins and non-admins be looked at differently at ArbCom? How about article writers and those otherly-engaged?
 * 4) Does WP:IAR get overused? (my gut says yes, but I am not certain). Under what circumstances is it most often used inappropriately?
 * 5) I've seen it written that in order to be a good arbitrator, a WPian must first be a good editor. Do you agree with this? How would you characterize your own editing?

'1. Where would you place nationalist disputes in your discussion of edit warriors, (answers to Heimstern, above)? Do these disputes, editors, or articles need some different sort of treatment from ArbCom?'

I don't distinguish any type of edit war by subject matter. The common elements are heated emotions and what can be termed "axe-grinding". My assessment of the types of editors and how to handle these types of cases involved is outlined in my answer to Heimstern above.

2. Can you imagine a circumstance under which ArbCom would be compelled to examine the conduct of Jimbo Wales?

Well I can "imagine" one, sure, but I can also "imagine" me marrying Jessica Alba. In all seriousness, Jimbo's direct involvement with Wikipedia itself decreases every year, and I find it hard to imagine him doing anything that would need ArbCom's attention. But if it did, ArbCom is authorised to make a judgement.

'3. Parties often arrive to ArbCom "unequal" and with different areas of work in the encyclopedia. I mean to say, new editor, experienced editor, vandal patroller, good article writer, new admin, image person, categorizer, etc. Is there built-in conflict in producing an all-volunteer 'pedia with so many different roles? And more specifically, should admins and non-admins be looked at differently at ArbCom? How about article writers and those otherly-engaged?'

I regard all of these issues as largely irrelevant, and I regard someone with 100 edits no different to someone with 50000. Each case must be assessed on its merits and the evidence. Admins, if anything, risk being treated less favourably, as they are (by virtue of their position) expected to maintain a higher standard of behaviour and adherence to principle.

'4. Does WP:IAR get overused? (my gut says yes, but I am not certain). Under what circumstances is it most often used inappropriately?'

No, I don't believe so. It is the most difficult rule to understand however, and it most often gets invoked by someone who doesn't understand its deeper meaning. IAR can be invoked ONLY for the sake of the 'pedia. Due to its deep and fundamental nature, the community tends to react harshly whenever it is invoked by someone trying to further a personal agenda.

'5. I've seen it written that in order to be a good arbitrator, a WPian must first be a good editor. Do you agree with this? How would you characterize your own editing?'

We're ALL editors. A "good" editor is one who is committed to the project and who upholds its principles. I would hope that in this context, I am regarded as a "good" editor. Most of my article editing is done anonymously, and in recent years it has largely revolved around the dull and arduous task of referencing and copyediting. When I am logged in I tend to focus on admin tasks such as page deletions, etc.

A good" arbitrator is one who is calm, impassive, yet deeply committed to the WP project as a whole. Anyone who has those qualities is (by my definition) a "good" editor as well, regardless of what specific tasks they undertake.

Question from SilkTork (answered)
'''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 17:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well at first glance I can't see why such a proposal would ever arise, as it simply combines some two fully established policies anyway.

Firstly, the right of anonymous IPs to edit. This is fundamental and will never change unless there is a dramatic shift in the core WP values. Vandalism patrollers are the ones who detest anonymous IPs the most, because it is true that the majority of "idiot-grade" vandalism comes from anonymous IPs, and it can sometimes feel like anonymous IPs are nothing but trouble. But a vast amount of very valuable information (and also cleanup work like referencing/copyediting/etc) comes from anonymous IPs. 90% of my own work is done anonymously. (This was a decision I made back in 2002 when I was far better known in the community and I was a constant target of vandalism, "please intervene" type cries, etc, etc. In my very early days I was inexperienced enough to get involved in these passionate debates. One benefit of losing most of the 2001 history is that my most embarassing moments have been lost forever - but reast assured, I had them). Furthermore, requiring registration before making the first edit would be a barrier to newbies.

As far as the registration requirement for voting, this is a regretable departure from the "anyone can participate" principle, but was a necessary consequence of the arrival of sockpuppetry and similar means of attempting to corrupt the electoral process.

In terms of "sleuthing": well it depends on what you actually mean. I'm guessing you are referring to checkuser, which, sadly, is a very necessary facility, due to repeated attempts at abusing the electoral system. (If you are referring to other means then please elaborate).

Questions from Irpen (answered)
The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private.

''Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?''
 * Mailing list


 * Access to the private ArbCom discussions should only be available to ArbCom members. I am not even entirely convinced of the merits of former ArbCom members having access to the private discussions (although I can see the merits of having their experience to call upon). The deliberations of a trial jury are private for similar reasons. Breaches of this private forum (eg by an ArbCom member passing on information to a concerned party) is a serious form of misconduct and I would expect such an offender to dealt with severely.

''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?''
 * Secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators


 * I would uneqivocably support such a prohibition (with the obvious "privacy" exeption you noted).

''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?''
 * Recusals


 * It would be my expectation that the eligibility of a arbitrator to assess a case would be discussed privately within ArbCom itself, and that if the committee decided an arbitrator needed to recuse, then they would make that known. I would also expect that the community would only be informed that "Member X has recused" as the exact reason why a recusal occurred is not relevant to a case. Once an arbitrator has recused, he is no longer an arbitrator (for the purposes of that case), and is thus subject to the same code of behaviour as any other editor in the community. Attempting to deny an arbitrator access to the private discussions might be impractical, but I would expect that there would be no private communication on the topic as a matter of principle. Arbitrators are expected to maintain the highest standards of conduct. So although I agree with the spirit of the policy, I would expect that such conduct was inherent in the position and I would be very disappointed it were necessary to formally regulate the conduct of arbitrators in this way.

''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?''
 * Community oversight over the arbitration policy

I don't believe the situation is as black and white as you might be portraying. ArbCom does not have exclusive control over the policy, but it reserves some rights, presumably as a backup against unworkable policy being implemented. Even if ArbCom did have "complete authority over the policy", ArbCom could not completely act against the community's will without damaging/destroying the mandate ArbCom possesses to preside over cases, so whatever power it has over the final policy is still highly conditional.

I haven't seen a circumstance where this "reserved right over policy" has been invoked (although feel free to correct me). If it came to an irreconcilable division between the community and ArbCom, I would imagine that Jimbo would be called in. Despite his desire and ongoing efforts to render WP completely autonomous, if it really came down to it, he remains the only person who has universal authority, and I would be shocked if ArbCom attempted to overrule any decree he issued.

Question from Ragesoss (answered)
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 23:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

SPOV is not a recognised term within Wikipedia, not should it ever be, as it can be accused of being a "biased point of view trying to legitimise itself". If Wikipedia granted formal credence to SPOV, it would quickly find itself being demanded to grant credence to the "theological point of view", the "nationalist point of view", the "pro/anti american points of view" and any number of other "biased viewpoints that don't regard themselves as biased". (I'm not suggesting that the SPOV is a "dogma" in the sense of some of the other examples. However there are sections of the community who do reject the SPOV as being valid and would insist that it is biased. If SPOV was "formally recognised", they would subsequently demand "formal" recognition for their own viewpoint.)

Basicallt we just don't ever need the term SPOV. In science articles the SPOV and the NPOV are usually identical. In non-scientific articles (eg - articles concerning fiction, biography, history, etc) the term is irrelevant.

The term SPOV only raises its head wherever scientific and other belief systems collide - typically Creationism and Pseudoscience. It was most bandied about before the days when we had the sense to split Evolution and Creationism into two seperate articles that merely nodded at each other, and then relocate the warzone to Creation-evolution_controversy. (This is certainly the oldest and possibly the most heated debate in the history of WP.)

The danger here is by even permitting the idea that there is such as thing as a scientific "point of view", we imply that science constitutes an "opinion", which is something I disagree with strongly. Science is a collection of empirical evidence, plus a body of conclusions supported (usually overwhelmingly) by that evidence. Readers should be exposed to the evidence and let it speak for itself.

In an article on Quantitative trait locus (which underpins evolutionary theory) the term "SPOV" never arises. But I've seen attempts (long ago) to apply SPOV to articles like Transubstantiation because someone felt the need to point out that "a wafer and wine can't really turn into the body and blood of someone - it's not scientific". (Fortunately there is no such aspect now). Ditto for reincarnation, nirvana and who-knows-what-else.

It's important to remember that WP has no opinions and casts no judgements. Where an article deals with a scientific topic then we don't need the term SPOV, as it is inherent. Any other time it is used it is because someone is trying to legitimise their claim to "the truth" and WP always needs to rein those arguments back under NPOV where they belong.

Question from Splash (answered)
Hello, there. I realise you've answered a long list of questions already, but in reading them through I didn't find the answer to two that are in my head, specifically in regards to you. I wonder if you'd spare me a few brief sentences in reply? I'd like to support but need a knot unpicking:

1. Your 'activity level' is low, as is being observed in the 'oppose' section, and many arbitrators this year have not participated consistently or reliably (nor even usefully in some cases). Do you imagine that your commitment to the committee would be to the level where we could expect a significant fraction of cases to benefit from your involvement?

2. In examination of east718, you appear to imply that we could expect a reasonably 'soft' line from you. But arbitration is the end of the dispute resolution process, and usually imposes a great burden on those bringing the case. To make them go around the wheel again and again is neither fair nor useful. I wonder if you'd clarify your view on the finality of the arbitration process.

Thank you. Splash - tk 13:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

'1. Your 'activity level' is low, as is being observed in the 'oppose' section, and many arbitrators this year have not participated consistently or reliably (nor even usefully in some cases). Do you imagine that your commitment to the committee would be to the level where we could expect a significant fraction of cases to benefit from your involvement?'

For starters, I expected this issue to be the killer, and I have no serious expectation of being elected as a result. I am frankly quite astounded at the level of support I have received thus far. Over the years I have spent 90% of my Wikipedia time editing anonymously, and it was really only when I decided to run for ArbCom that I have been consistently logged in.

The reasons behind this date back to 2002. There were some ridiculous fights going on and at the time I was quite a "high profile" member. As a result I was forever getting dragged into things, and there was some really ugly things going down, so I decided to go underground. But with the exception of a 3-4 month period in late 2002, and another similar period in mid-2004, I've pretty much always been here.

As my profile dropped away I just stayed in the habit of being low-key and editing anonymously, and frankly I quite enjoy it. I also made a conscious decision to avoid controversy and edit at the low-end of the quality and visibility scales. (As further proof of how ancient I am, I started on Wikipedia long before the days of the "Watchlist" and I am still in the habit of managing everything through browser bookmarks, which is why I don't find being anonymous inconvenient.)

To the point of the question - if I were to be elected I would simply schedule the duties into my daily life. A few other things would have to slide to accomodate it (eg. editing and I also have a few other non-WP activities on the web) but once those adjustments were made it would not disrupt my life to the point where it would be onerous. Having said that, if the obligations of ArbCom were to consistently exceed 10-12 hours per week, I would advocate for a review and possible expansion of the Committee.

'2. In examination of east718, you appear to imply that we could expect a reasonably 'soft' line from you. But arbitration is the end of the dispute resolution process, and usually imposes a great burden on those bringing the case. To make them go around the wheel again and again is neither fair nor useful. I wonder if you'd clarify your view on the finality of the arbitration process.'

No, I don't think I am "soft" as such, but I am always concerned ultimately for the 'pedia. Arbitration disputes rarely involve simple trouble makers and "single-focus obsessives". Such editors are comparatively simple to deal with. In many ArbCom cases we are dealing with otherwise superb editors who are overly emotionally invested and have lost their impartiality in a particular circumstance. Some of the earliest cases which came before ArbCom (indeed cases which spurred the creation of ArbCom in the first place) concerned truly brilliant and gifted editors such as these.

In most cases the best remedy is to get the editor(s) concerned away from the topic via some means. To achieve this I have a "rehabilitative" philosophy as opposed to a "banishment" philosophy.

In a case where an editor clearly has potential to remain beneficial to the project I would always consider offering them a method of redemption. If I am of the belief that an editor cannot be trusted to behave impartially and appropriately in a subject area then I would lean strongly towards denying them access to the topic of contention and directing them (or even assigning them) to unrelated, neutral subject areas.

If an editor fails at the assigned "path of redemption" or has breached the terms of a previous undertaking, then I am swift and final in my judgements. I simply don't opt for abrupt finality if I can see a possible outcome which may have greater benefit for the 'pedia. Furthermore, if an editor has been given a "forbidden from subject X and assigned to subjects YZ" judgement and leaves the project in a huff, then we have achieved the same outcome as a banishment without adding to the nonsense perception that Wikipedia "kicks out anyone who disagrees with the Supreme Cabal".

Administrators who have clearly misused their power to achieve a personal end are people I would judge more harshly (as they are expected to maintain the highest ethical standards), but I would still always advocate a clear path towards "rehabilitation".
 * Thank you for the answers. Splash - tk 01:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Haukur (answered)
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)

To take the easy option, I'll accept the answer you provided: "I'd consider overruling a decision he made if I thought it was a bad one".

However I will elaborate on my thoughts regarding the relationship between Jimbo and WP. And please forgive me if I sound a little wearied, but people have been arguing over the role of Jimbo since day one, and - seriously - I've heard it all before.

I've known Jimbo for six years and in that time I have not seen a single occasion where he has made a truly bad decision, or unfairly exploited his "absolute power". Even the recent "storm-in-a-teacup" over his de-sysopping of an admin was accompanied by the statement "let's let it rest for three days" indicating he was calm, rational and open to negotiation. Plus the guy was going camping with his family, and so his reasons for the delay were perfectly valid.

But Jimbo has always had to endure the relentless, tabloid-style scrutiny of some elements of the community who are all too ready to howl loudly and self-righteously if there is the slightest hint of deviation from what they believe is "how Jimbo should act". Actions that with any other editor would promote nothing more than a mild "please explain" end up as formal RfCs. I have strong suspicions that Jimbo must have had some moments where he looked long and hard at the plug in the server room.

The obsession with Jimbo within the WP community really reminds me of gutter tabloid sensationalism, and the WP world would be a much better place if we could all just let it go.

Question from Mrs.EasterBunny (answered)
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 question 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) 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Mrs.EasterBunny - At first glance the core issue here is that if an admin has behaved inappropriately there are channels for voicing that, even when blocked. Breaking another policy in order to "get justice" is a bit like stabbing someone to get a retrial. Even if the retrial is justified, it hardly helps the overall cause.


 * It is possible (though I am speculating) that the channels for requesting a review of an admin action failed to function properly in this case, which could be what motivated the editor to create a sock. (At the moment I have no idea.) Anyway I would like some time to analyse this case appropriately to ensure I give you a more considered answer. Expect a thorough response within 24 hours from the posting of this comment. Regards Manning (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * After reviewing this particular situation to some extent there has been a cascade of errors. It may be the case that the administrator overstepped the mark. However there are processes to follow to dispute an administrator action, and any request presented reasonably and calmly will almost certainly be treated without prejudice, even if lodged by someone with a fairly bad record.


 * Block overturn requests are all too often in the form "I shouldn't have been blocked - it is all editorXYZ's fault - he's the a**hole...(etc)". Needless to say, when I see one of these I usually don't even bother to review the evidence. But if an overturn request is of the form "I was out of line, I apologise to EditorXYZ and I undertake to not breach policy XXX again, and to stay away from the {subject area}", then I think almost every administrator would treat it with dignity and genuine consideration. Ditto for a block where there is no genuine case that a policy has been breached, and the blocked user presents a calm and civilised request for a second opinion.


 * However, if a user directly breaches another policy such as the WP:SOCK in order to get around a block, there really isn't much anyone can say about it. I would not support the offending editor, even if I was otherwise sympathetic to their cause, because that would set an unfortunate precedent. Manning (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional question from Irpen (answered)
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 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Participation in the electoral process means implicitly agreeing to abide by the nature and rules of that process. As a result, ethically, this is a question I do not feel comfortable answering *while formally engaged within that process*. I can assure you however that I will accept the outcome of this electoral process (for or against my favour) without any form of dispute. Conveniently, I also suspect that I won't have to confront any such ethical dilemmas, as I am a long way outside the top five candidates. Once this election is completed I would be happy to revisit this discussion. Manning (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from wbfergus (Question withdrawn)
What is your position on the following? wbfergus undefinedTalk 15:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 21:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood. I respect your approach to this matter. Regards Manning (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Pinkville (answered)
Wikipedia is a community that produces and maintains a (still-nascent) encyclopaedia. This community has particular social and political structures that define it and that, presumably, affect the character, quality, and depth of its encyclopaedic output. Can you briefly summarise some political and social aspects of the Wikipedia community that you consider important or noteworthy, that perhaps need to be challenged or developed? How does the structure of Wikipedia encourage or inhibit access to decision-making and issues of power/control? Or does any of that matter? And what are the implications for the Arbitration Committee and its members? Pinkville (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have watched the power structures of Wikipedia evolve over a number of years. The structures are dynamic and organic, and they simply are what they are. No one person (including Jimbo) really has the power to effect a fundamental change anymore, as the organism is self-correcting. I am regularly amused by people who have been here for barely 12 months telling me "how much Wikipedia has changed". In terms of it's essence, it simply hasn't. (Even the rigid formalisation of WP:BLP was just a codification of what was the dominant behaviour anyway).


 * The rigor of the policies now is one of its strongest features, and although wikilawyering will always exist, it is far more difficult now to blatantly flount policy for one's personal agendas.


 * I think the future of Wikipedia is in quality control. Personally I focus on getting every article up to a "C" grade, but I do that because that is where my generalist skills are most useful. However I personally think the most important component of Wikipedia is Featured Articles and the sooner we get that up to 10,000 and then 100,000 the better. Doing that will require recruiting skilled experts.


 * The saddest aspect of Wikipedia is the constant disputes over policy - they're pretty much good now. I see editors who have 80% of their edits in the WP namespace and this saddens me, because on some fundamental level they are simply missing the point. I've certainly read every policy and watched them evolve over time, but I can't ever recall getting into a dispute over them. The people who get into *vicious* disputes over policy are paradoxically the people who bring the least value to the project, as their disruptions get us nowhere and for the most part, the changes to the policies are minimal. I sometimes wish these people would just go find an article to edit, particularly when there are 28000 articles in WP:CLEANUP alone.


 * Finally my apologies for the delay in responding - I've been moving apartment since Tuesday and my online time has been sporadic at best. Regards Manning (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Pinkville (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)