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

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Questions by east718
1. 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?


 * Yes, they take too long. Many cases that I've been involved with or watched have taken what seems to be an extraordinary amount of time.  Cases shouldn't be rushed since there needs to be time for all involved and interested to comment and provide evidence; Arbitrators also need time to carefully review all aspects presented.  That said, I cannot think of any reason a case should be inactive for a month or more without closure.  While some cases are small in scope, many of these long running cases become open-sores for the community; lengthy cases simply prolong the agony.


 * I personally would not have considered running if I couldn't be certain that I would have a great deal of time to devote to reviewing cases. I think I'd like to try a few tools from my project management background to motivate other Arbitrators and foster discussion that would hopefully speed cases along.Shell babelfish 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

2. 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 18:35, 11/1/2007


 * I'm sure anyone could go back and pick apart closed cases - what looks good at the time may be misconstrued later; I'll try to limit myself for the sake of those reading through candidate pages. Some times I find myself disagreeing with wording.  A recent example is from the THF-DavidShankBone proposals.  One of the proposed principles was "Wikipedia users, as a condition of editing Wikipedia, are expected to voluntarily follow our policies and guidelines. Policing of infractions by administrators is limited to egregious violations."  I believe the creator intended this to mean "Don't run to admins or ArbCom with every little dispute" but it could wrongly be cited later to sanction an admin's attempt to diffuse situations that are not violating anything in an egregious manner.  It would have helped to clarify the difference between administrative intervention and just a plain ole admin - admins are just other editors too, its the tools that are only used in certain instances.


 * There are times I disagree with the intent as well. For example on Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy, a principle was "Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards neutral point of view in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Editors who have exceptionally strong professional, political, or financial commitments to a particular point of view are asked to refrain from editing in affected subject areas. This is particularly true when the affected subject areas are controversial."  I have a strong objection to that second sentence; having worked at OTRS, I have encountered many activists and even marketing folks who choose to follow our policies and write from a neutral perspective.  In reality, I realize that there are many cases where activists feel too strongly to follow NPOV properly, but "not possible" is far too strong a language and invites us to avoid using our judgment, much in the way zero-tolerance polices do.  This also opens the door for the less than ethical to preclude certain points of view from articles by using this to effectively ban interested editors from a topic.Shell babelfish 23:43, 1 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.

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?


 * I'm going to assume by edit warriors that you're referring to editors who have a persistent history of continually reverting to their preferred version without or regardless of discussion. As an editor, my first instinct is always to try talking it out with them (or see if someone has done so) - why do they feel they need to revert? do they realize that their behavior is a problem? can they be encouraged to do more productive editing?  Sometimes talking works or at least points me at a way to resolve the issue; sometimes cattle-prod blocks get a more stubborn editor's attention; sometimes, escalating DR is the only option.


 * When it comes to ArbCom, the sanctions are going to depend on the level and scope of the disruption. When the disruption is localized, editing restrictions may be most appropriate.  When the editor is open to change, parole may be more appropriate.  When the editor refuses to acknowledge even the possibility of being disruptive or vows to continue regardless, bans for non-productive editors or severe paroles for otherwise helpful editors should be considered. Shell babelfish 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Incivility happens in an atmosphere where important clues like body language and tone are missing, however, there is a difference between typed language sounding more abrasive and a constant attitude that screams "fuck off, I'm always right". Again, this boils down to disruption - is this affecting multiple editors or areas of Wikipedia? does this editor realize they are offending others? are they willing to change?


 * Cases of incivility that reach the level of arbitration are generally large in scope or focus on one incident that was particularly egregious. I think parole should be the first option, with escalating blocks.  Ban worthy incivility is usually handled by the community long before it reaches ArbCom. Shell babelfish 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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?


 * Everyone should be allowed mistakes; in that way, a history of useful actions can show us that the administrator isn't apt to be a constant problem. Remedies need to consider an editor as a whole, not just on an isolated incident. On the other side, intentional (especially disruptive) misuse of the tools or a pattern of misuse of the tools are both reasons removal of the bit should be considered. Intentional misuse encompasses a wide spectrum of behaviors; it may need nothing more than a stern "We see your point, but don't do that again" or may be enough of a breech of trust that the community doesn't want the editor having access to the tools.  A pattern of misuse without an incredibly convincing explanation should almost always result in bit removal.


 * I honestly can't think of a single circumstance where a temporary de-sysopping would be productive; if the person can't use the tools properly, they shouldn't have them - if they can but have behaved incivilly like the case mentioned then a typical civility parole should be used. Allowing removal of admin status for civility problems gives admins an advantage that regular editors don't have. Shell babelfish 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * After some further review of cases, I've changed my mind a bit. I still don't think the particular case cited merited removal of the admin tools since the problem came not so much from misuse of the tools as a failure to communicate and behave civily.  However, in cases of intentional misuse or plain ridiculousness when using the tools, a temporary desysop might be appropriate where a formal caution will not work. Shell babelfish 15:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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


 * The community is usually saavy about getting to the point of a ban. If the banned editor can submit evidence of canvassing or other abnormality in the consensus process, an appeal should be considered.  If evidence exists that, if presented to the community, would likely have garnered a different outcome of the ban discussion, an appearl should be considered.  If in the opinion of the Arbitrators, no credible evidence exists that would have changed the community's decision, then the ban should remain. Shell babelfish 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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?


 * Arbitrators will not always agree on every finding or sanction, however, the Committee should work together to form a consensus about issues brought before them. Closed discussion can be used to hammer out any contentious points.


 * As a side note, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid was a content dispute that was conflated into behavioral problems in order to get ArbCom involved. I think the inability to agree on proposed findings illustrates that while the Committee had the best of intentions in taking the case, it quickly found itself mired in something the community should have handled. Shell babelfish 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Majorly
These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)

1. How do you think that your personality would make you a good arbitrator?


 * I'm a pretty laid back person. I tend to recognize when I'm having a bad day and watch myself to keep from doing or saying something stupid (note: this does not always work ;) ).  I tend to be rational, sometimes overly so (anyone ever see Bones?) - a well reasoned and sensible argument can change my mind, while ranting generally doesn't get people very far.  I assume good faith until it hurts, but I'm also not going to stand up for editors who are an obvious drain on the community.  My life is about balance, finding the center - all of these things should be an asset to resolving and dealing with the kinds of issues that come in front of ArbCom. Shell babelfish 02:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Do you have any experience in real life that could relate to activities arbitrators have to deal with?


 * I'm not sure anything out there prepares you for Wikipedia's eccentricities. If other online endeavors count, I have managed or moderated a number of online communities.  If you just want flesh and blood experiences, working as a management consultant and project manager have taught me to get to the bottom of issues and work with others to create a plan to resolve them.  This kind of work demands diplomacy and creative solutions - both attributes will be valuable while working on the Committee. Shell babelfish 02:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time.  Majorly  (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from xaosflux

 * 1) As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants.  Thank you,— xaosflux Talk 19:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)


 * Since both of these permissions deal with privacy concerns, access should be limited to those who have already established that level of trust. Checkuser is a tool to root out problematic editors and as such it is unlikely that requests demand urgency - a proportionally small number of trusted users can handle this function.  Oversight is used only in potentially damaging circumstances, the requests should be dealt with as soon as possible; editors with this permission should consider looking for additional volunteers with the appropriate trust levels if they find that oversight requests are not being handled quickly. It is unlikely that an application system will ever be necessary for either permission. Shell babelfish 03:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Picaroon

 * Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007 and User:Picaroon/Stats. Do you have time to vote on most of the approximately eight cases a month that will come before the committee? Would you resign your post if you found yourself consistently (say, 2-3 months on end) unable to even get near that goal? Under what conditions besides inactivity would you resign your post?


 * Nice work on the stats :) I will have the time to review and vote on the cases.  If I was going to be or found myself unable to contribute to a majority of the cases that come through ArbCom, I would voluntarily resign; ArbCom is one of the few places on Wikipedia where there aren't scores of other volunteers to pick up the slack.  Aside from inactivity, if another Arbitrator/former arbitrator/experienced administrator things I'm screwing up, I'd be open to resign; essentially I'd be open to recall like I am as an admin. Shell babelfish 06:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Under what conditions should non-arbitrators be granted access to the arbcom mailing list? Former members, checkusers/oversights who have never been on the committee, board members, others?


 * Other editors with a similar trust level - former arbcom members in good standing, checkusers/oversights, board members - can lend their experience and insight to helping sort out cases. Since they've been "read in" on privacy expectations, there should be no reason they would be prevented from viewing the information discussed on the closed list. Shell babelfish 06:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you show an example or two of a normal case (ie, accepted via committee vote on WP:RFAR, not dismissed without remedies) where you largely disagree with the final decision? Please explain why you disagree with the outcome, and say what you would've supported instead (or, alternately, why the case shouldn't have been accepted).


 * One case I felt missed the ball both by being accepted and in the scope of the resolution was Requests for arbitration/Attack sites. Obviously a clarification of the early case was needed to stem the rampant overuse of the finding; many editors were removing links based on wikilawyering instead of common sense.  Once the case was open, behavior of the participants should have been reviewed, yet none of the lengthy closing touched on these issues in a substantial way.  Regardless of the prior ruling I believe there was some extraordinarily silly behavior that should have at least gotten a formal warning. Shell babelfish 04:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please list the total number of alternate accounts you have used, and please list the usernames of as many as you feel comfortable making public.


 * None, however, I did rename my original username choice Jareth to my real name after a run-in with a particular cretin whom I will not even gratify by naming. Shell babelfish 06:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Under what circumstances should a case be heard completely via email, as opposed to onwiki? Under what conditions should the committee block a user without making public the full extent of the reasoning (for example, this user)?


 * If the case is going to bring up private data, consist mostly of discussing violations because of it, especially if this involves outing an editor's real identity and again especially if this editor is a known figure, it would be prudent to have most, if not all of the discussion on the private list.


 * If you connect the dots surrounding that user you'll note that it appears full disclosure would have released private data on a known personality.


 * Essentially when we're talking about a lack of full transparency with ArbCom like those examples, you're going to be looking at a case of avoiding violating the Foundations privacy policy or avoiding potential real life embarrassment for an editor. These are the types of things we have already trusted the ArbCom with by giving them Oversight and Checkuser - there is no reason to withdraw that trust for our own curiosity. Shell babelfish 06:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think of Jimmy Wales desysop of a few days ago? (see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My desysop of Zscout370‎)? What should he have done differently, if anything? What role should the committee have had in this?


 * I have no problem with the desysopping; there may have been other avenues, but there's little doubt this sent a clear and direct signal on two fronts. First, the idea that admins should discuss undoing blocks with other admins is rarely followed in practice - it should be, religiously.  I hate it when I hear "I can't see any reason for it" and then that "I" never bothers to check what the blocking admin might have seen for it.  Its great to have this system of checks and balances, but assuming we're still not all-knowing, some professional courtesy and circumspection is in order as well.  Second, the segment of the community who wants to give unproductive editors umpteen chances has it wrong.  We are an internet community, but only by happenstance - we are here to build an encylopedia - anyone not on that boat ought to be shown the door.  Its time we dispelled the idea that there is a right to contribute here, a right to free speech here or a right to turn this project into your own vision of what it should be - some things are even more non-negotiable than NPOV.


 * As far as the committee is concerned, if there was a strong feeling that the block needed to be overturned while Jimbo was away, against his polite request and judgment, the community should have requested a review by the committee. Shell babelfish 06:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Under what circumstances should the committee implement an indefinite ban on a user? Under what conditions should probation/supervised editing be instituted instead of a ban of any duration?


 * In cases where an editor has shown a pattern of disruption, a lack of interest in building an encylopedia or is a net negative to the project, an indefinite ban may be appropriate. If a user is not disruptive overall, or has a problem in a specific area like civility or reverting too quickly and the editor is open to changing that behavior a probation, parole or mentoring may be the best way to resolve the issue.  In the end the goal is to resolve behavioral problems keeping the best interests of the project in mind. Shell babelfish 04:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What constitutes a wheel war? Was the Requests for arbitration/BJAODN situation a wheel war? How about Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot and Requests for arbitration/Alkivar? Thanks for your time, Picaroon (t) 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say that undoing another admin's non editing action without discussion or an obvious community consensus is a bad thing. Despite the fact that its been historical practice, written up in policies and is just general good sense, many admins take reversing another's actions too lightly.   That said, I think the term "wheel war" describes more than just one reversal, similar to an edit war.  This doesn't make it ok to undo another admin's actions without due consideration, but I think the term gets bandied about to frequently.


 * The BJAODN incident shouldn't be called a wheel war, but regardless the deleting, undeleting etc. wasn't kosher and the admins involved should have known better. In the Sadi Carnot case, again, I'm not certain that the term covers the actions - and again removing an indef block without consulting the blocking admin wasn't the best idea - it looks like an admin confusing indefinite with infinite; the second unblock was just silly - we don't unblock to stop someone in the middle of a flounce.  In the Alkivar case there is at least one documented incident where an admin reverted another's actions more than once, which I think is truly the intention of the term "wheel war". Shell babelfish 04:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got to grab some sleep this evening. Thank you all for the stimulating questions - I'll try to get the rest of them answered during my day tomorrow. Shell babelfish 06:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from I

 * 1) 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) 22:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the two major problems are case and information overload. Its important to have arbitrators who can remain active and devote a great deal of time to reviewing cases.  I believe my ideas like the executive summary for evidence I mentioned below can help with the information overload. Shell babelfish 06:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from 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?

Thanks, Wanderer57 01:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there are issues with the current way user RfCs are being handled and used, but I don't think unfairness to any particular side is one of those problems. Unfortunately, instead of being productive discussions many degenerate into name calling by both sides - the original idea of these RfCs has eroded over time into the silliness that often goes on. Shell babelfish 06:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Daniel
1: The use of IRC evidence in arbitration cases has flared up in certain cases. A few questions on this:-
 * a) Do you believe that IRC conversations in Wikipedia channels (ie. #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-admins) should be admissible in arbitration cases where it is directly relevant to the dispute at hand?
 * b) Do you believe the Arbitration Committee has the jurisdiction to sanction users in these channels when it relates to Wikipedia disruption? If not, should it?
 * c) If so, what are your thoughts on possibly creating an official Arbitration Committee IRC logging account in these channels for the purpose of providing corrupt-free logs when required for deliberation?


 * a) Yes. If evidence is pertinent to a case, especially if similar evidence is not available elsewhere, arbitration shouldn't be blind in this area.


 * b) No. There are already other processes for handling disruption of Freenode channels.


 * c) Not sure why this would be needed; if there is some question about the veracity of the logs, another copy can most likely be obtained from a trusted editor. Shell babelfish 08:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

2: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they?


 * Anything considered private conversation should not be published to Wikipedia. Shell babelfish 08:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

3: Are Wikipedians, in particular administrators, required to answer to the Committee for their activites outside English Wikipedia (ie. on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wikipedia-related websites including The Wikipedia Review, conduct linked to Wikipedia etc.). Should they be? If so, should the Arbitration Committee have intervened in the case of Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision?


 * Yes, to a point. If an editor is incivil elsewhere, but not on Wikipedia, the off-site behavior shouldn't matter because it doesn't affect participation here.  If an editor is revealing personal identification or assisting in the harassment of Wikipedia editors elsewhere, then their behavior does affect participation here and can be considered.


 * The community, right or wrong, discusses and tries to reach consensus on admin candidates (even though the process is currently far too much like voting). Unless there's some kind of impropriety like shady canvassing or other foul-play that tampers with the RfA, I don't see any reason for the committee to be involved.  And as far as the Everyking case goes, his poor decision had a real impact on-site and he did lose the trust of many community members - I see nothing wrong with the decision. Shell babelfish 08:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

4: Theoretical situation: an OTRS respondent blanks a section of an article on a living person, clearly stating that it is an OTRS action based on a semi-credible legal threat in the edit summary. The respondent then protects the article and leaves a note on the talk page asking for the section to be rebuilt, citing OTRS again. An administrator comes along and unprotects it 15mins later and reverts to the old version. A series of administrative and editorial reversions take place, with protection and unprotection (with content reversions) occurring three times in quick succession before both administrators are emergency-desysopped.

The article is then reprotected by a third administrator, and a case brought before the Arbitration Committee. Upon reviewing the OTRS ticket privately on the mailing list, it contains a semi-credible legal threat which is now being dealt with by legal counsel. With regards to the three administrators, what sanctions do you 'support' applying to each of the three?


 * I'd say the admin who originally unprotected the article and reverted the content (I'm assuming without any discussion first) needs to lose the bit. The other admin, though participating in a bit war should be commended for using their brain and recognizing that a credible threat to the Foundation is not something to be trifled with.  I'd need more information about the actions of the third admin - I'd assume at this point there are discussions ongoing since the other two were defenestrated and its likely that consensus is to continue protection until the OTRS complaint can be reviewed.  If that is the case, the third admin is mostly inconsequential to the case. Shell babelfish 08:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

5: What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war?


 * I believe a wheel war is when a few people engage in the persistent undoing of each others actions. On Wikipedia its general used specifically to refer to the undoing of admin actions and has recently been used when only one undo was performed.  I think we're stretching the term a bit much, but that doesn't make undoing another admin's actions without discussion a good thing.  Ever. Shell babelfish 08:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Addhoc
In your candidate statement, you indicate that you have experience of dispute resolution. Could you provide links to disputes you have resolved in the last 12 months? Thanks! Addhoc 12:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * One example is Juice Plus; the product tends to polarize opinions - its alternately a cure for all that ails you or junk science depending on which side of the fence you're looking at.  Distributors, the manufacturer and even researchers have stopped by to put in their two cents; many have even edited the article and NPOV is often a problem.  After a major copyedit I performed after being alerted to the article via an OTRS email, I have been assisting in mediations since 2006; I wouldn't call it resolved since these polarized opinions seem to prevent editors from being able to resolve issues between themselves every time something crops up (about once every 2-3 months).  Since it's covered such a large time period, there are many talk archives to wade through but I believe the first two would best show my style with that mediation.


 * An example of one that is resolved would be my mediation of the criticisms section dispute on Talk:Real Social Dynamics. Apologies to non-admins; this one has been deleted since then by an AfD discussion.  The gist was members of the pick-up community and owners of the company disagreed about the section; both sides were adding highly POV material while sometimes removing anything that didn't support their side of the dispute.  By getting both sides working on meeting WP:V and WP:NPOV they soon found a straight forward and factual way to present information critical of the company from very reliable sources.


 * A lot of the mediating I undertake occurs via OTRS emails; if anyone with OTRS access is interested in reviewing some of my work there, please drop me a line and I'll be happy to pull up some cases. Shell babelfish 05:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wikidudeman
In my experience, many larger arbitrations seem to suffer from the fact that the arbitrators do not spend as much time on examining the evidence and statements as they should be spending. Examples of problems that arise would be proposals not being used or relevant issues not even being addressed. This is probably due to the large backlog and caseload. What would you do to ensure that all arbitrations are ended efficiently and fairly and that all issues and concerns are addressed and all needed remedies met?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the masses of evidence sometimes produced by a case, we can't expect that something won't slip by or not stick out like it should. Some of this is due to the caseload placed on arbitrators and some due to arbitration participants not being concise and to the point.  In real life, I've found some methods that help dramatically when dealing with data overload.  Data is useless without context, however, too much context obscures the facts - the solution is a tedious process of contextualizing and compacting the data to a usable format (think executive summary).  For ArbCom cases this means meticulously wading through each line of text and link in an editor's summary, pulling out each point being made and grouping evidence to those points. Once you have this, the data can then be categorized (I personally prefer using keywords) so that reviewers can sort to group together points about specific editors, specific incidents or discern patterns.  Data presented in this format can also be weighted due to severity or longevity or even annotated to show whether or not evidence supports a particular point - those kinds of judgments are better left to the individual reviewers of the data (each arbitrator) and not inserted by the summarizer.


 * If elected, I would like to make data summaries available privately to the committee to aid in their reviewing and decision making processes. Shell babelfish 04:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ultraexactzz
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 02:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wisdom. To expound, I mean the sense to be able to look beyond ourselves, our prejudices and our preconceived notions and arrive at rational decisions. Shell babelfish 04:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from User:Secret

 * What do you think about self-admitted alternative accounts, see User:MOASPN, and User:Privatemusings as an example? This is a Secret account 01:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think if you have something to say, you ought to have the integrity to say it. Regardless of my personal beliefs, the current policies don't forbid having an alternate account and in fact specifically mention segregation as a legitimate reason for creating an alternate account.  In both of the cases you mention, it appears that the accounts were used in a disruptive manner, which means that regardless of their alternative account status, blocking was a possibility. Shell babelfish 05:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think of Wikipedia Review? This is a Secret account 01:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at it much myself; most of my exposure to the site is based on what I've seen on the Admin noticeboards or the mailing lists. Given that the site has apparently allowed its resources to be used in a manner that promotes stalking and harassment, I would say kill it with fire - legitimate critical sites do not need nor allow that kind of sensationalism and predatory behavior. Shell babelfish 05:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 03:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There shouldn't be since majority scientific view should be most highly represented, however, since most editors aren't scientists, we need to make sure that they are aware that just because a group of lay people says something doesn't make it a majority or reliable view. Shell babelfish 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Mindraker
How would you resolve a conflict with which you have a personal tie, or may be biased towards one party or another? Mindraker 12:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Its common practice to recuse yourself from any case where you have previous history or a personal tie. Shell babelfish 18:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Wizardman

 * Last December, you ran for arbcom, and managed just over 50% support. I'm sure that you see yourself as more qualified now than last year. Could you explain how you've grown in the past year as a user, and how you're more prepared now than you may have been last year? I don't really know you at all, so this question will probably give me a better idea of you. Wizardman  02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot has changed over the past year; I think my biggest improvement was understanding the reasons behind WP:IAR and how it benefits the project - my incident handling has changed considerably because of it. The trolls are here to stay and make no mistake, they have learned precisely how to game our systems to their advantage - this is exactly where IAR needs to be applied the most.  Except in cases of obvious vandalism or obvious username violations, I spend a great deal of time researching issues before deciding whether or not something needs to be done about them.


 * For example, more than a year ago, I was approached by two editors both on my talk page and via email about some apparent BLP and personal attack violations - they also mentioned having sent several emails to OTRS (the older emails had been dealt with and a new one was in the queue at the time). They painted a convincing picture and backed up their accusations with diffs; reading the talk page of the article in question showed a lot of bickering and revert warring by all parties.  Based on that information, I ended up making a bad block on ScienceApologist.  What I didn't know is that the two accounts that contacted me were working in tandem; they had a strong POV and a history of disrupting the article.  They had learned over time to be very shrewd in their interactions and even went so far as to bait ScienceApologist to get certain remarks out of him they later used as "evidence".  Looking at the issue later, I realized that I would have needed to go through several pages of archives to see what was really going on - these two had been pushing their POV for so long that they had started using shorthand and wikilawyering on the later pages which made it almost impossible to make any sense out of it.


 * Sadly, this isn't an isolated case. POV pushers, in general, are getting more savvy.  They know exactly how to toe the line and how to use the rules against a productive editor; they know precisely how far they can go and still be supported by folks because of their "productive edits".  This is where IAR really comes in to play - sometimes an editor who plays by all the rules is still a serious detriment to the project. Shell babelfish 16:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Veesicle
What are your opinions of secret evidence being given privately to ArbCom? To what extent is this acceptable? User:Veesicle 23:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In cases where revealing the information publicly would be a breach of privacy or assist other evil-doers, then the information should be given privately. There may also be rare cases in which an editor could be harassed because of their participation (i.e. the case involves WR or something similar) where it may be more appropriate to review evidence in private. Shell babelfish 17:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from WJBscribe
A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer. Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Wikipedia in three years. Should there be a mechanism by which the Community can recall an arbitrator in whose judgment it loses confidence? Do you have any thoughts as to what form that mechanism should take?
 * 2) ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Wikipedia. Would you advocate withdrawing the access in the case of someone someone who failed to make sufficient use of it? If yes, what sort of activity level would you say is required?
 * 3) Where the Community finds itself unable to reach a consensus on the formulation of a given policy, do you think ArbCom has a role to play in determining that policy?


 * 1. A lot may change on Wikipedia, but what made the candidate a good Arbitrator shouldn't. However, if something drastic should happen, even Arbitrators shouldn't be untouchable.  I imagine Jimbo would toss any obvious calls and anything the community had concerns about would probably need a near unanimous RfC and a resultant appeal to Jimbo. Shell babelfish 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. Yes and no. Some people ought to be stuck with it regardless of their level of usage, add-ons brought in to help with requests ought to be using it or someone else should be chosen to take their place.  I don't think I can make a good call on what that activity level is since I couldn't tell you what the typical activity level looks like; pretty sure if they aren't touching it at all that'd be a good sign it can go.


 * 3. ArbCom might be able to assist, but shouldn't be in the habit of creating policy. Shell babelfish 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68
Have you successfully nominated any articles you've heavily edited for Featured or Good Article status? Cla68 03:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not as of yet, though I did put one up for GA today now that the edit warring is long past. I generally start stubs we're missing and do gnome work. Shell babelfish 20:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718

 * 1) I noticed that last time you received relatively few votes. In fact, that helped me make my decision. Do you have a sense of why many WPians did not express an opinion on your 2006 candidacy?


 * I'm a pretty gnomish person. I don't generally go in for much of the drama and I tend to work in odd out of the way places via OTRS requests or categories like images without categories.  Last time around another candidate mentioned that my name appears to low alphabetically ;) Shell babelfish 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Should ArbCom treat administrators differently from non-administrators? How, or under what circumstances?


 * Yes, when their use of the admin tools is under question. Otherwise, they're just another editor - we'd hope that they'd behave better, but that's not always the case. Shell babelfish 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Nationalist POV pushing cases involving multiple editors seem to be a reasonably-sized chunk of ArbCom's business. Should they be treated differently from other cases? If so, how?


 * I think topic bans or revert probations can be liberally applied in most of those cases. POV pushing is rarely ever a net positive for the project. 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) What do you think of this arbitrator selection process? If you could modify it, would you? How? Jd2718 19:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think its helpful that the community has so much time to review candidates and ask questions. The process seems to work well as is. Shell babelfish 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Revolving Bugbear
In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:

The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear  16:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sincere and plausible legal issues are handled by members of a special OTRS team and legal counsel - as your average joe editor, I'm not qualified to decide jurisdiction. As is always the case, any information that appears libelous should be removed immediately.  On the other side, there's no reason to remove legitimate information just because its negative and someone threatens us. Shell babelfish 22:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus

 * 1) Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?


 * If at all possible, yes. However, every person is different - an arbitrator should only be active in as many cases as they can thoroughly review. Shell babelfish 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Not necessarily. Sometimes the case tenants are rather straight-forward and voting or a short comment while voting suffices. Shell babelfish 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) 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?


 * I don't think old vs new is the right way to split things, however giving a positive contributor more leeway than a net drain on the project is fine by me. Shell babelfish 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?


 * Civility issues aren't cut and dry. While there are obvious cases of racism or blatant attacks at times, most cases require considerably more investigating than your typical 3RR and won't be handled as quickly. Shell babelfish 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Points of View: When does including "notable" points of view become problematic for NPOV?
When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?-- David  Shankbone  18:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe this is a symptom we're seeing. Since Wikipedia is not paper, there is endless room for everyone with a view to insert themselves somewhere.  What has changed is not the article focus, but our tolerance for editors whose goals don't coincide with the project's.  There is a strong movement of well intentioned but misguided people who think trolls should be coddled and "free speech" should be the rule.  We need to refocus and either get people on board or show them the door. Shell babelfish 13:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from 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? AniMate 12:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My latest project is Missing mammal species - I've only gotten through about 20 so far, but its a fun list. I also do a lot of gnomish work - I spent a day wikifying articles recently; I regularly go through uncategorized images and fix them up. Shell babelfish 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68
So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any point to this other than spreading drama? I don't participate in closed mailing lists. Shell babelfish 01:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754
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).
 * I think far too many editors are taking this far too seriously and behaving poorly as a response. I'm afraid I can't see the reason editors have gotten so passionate about the subject and I'm frankly stunned that given the wonderful group of people working there that they can't come to a consensus.  I think everyone is tired of seeing this debate rear its ugly head yet again.
 * 1) 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?
 * a)To allow editors with the same interests to collaberate. b)No, though they may often harbor many subject experts. c)No, consensus decision making is what enforces article layout -- Wikiprojects may help develop those standards in particular areas; if there is a problem with the standards, normal discussions should be able to resolve the issue.
 * 1) Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on sibling WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
 * If a group of editors have come to a consensus on an issue (i.e. the Manual of Style and other style guides) then all editors are expected to follow those standards when possible. If other editors disagree, discussion should ensue.  In this specific case, the debate has gone on far longer than necessary and all parties should consider disengaging and go back to improving the encyclopedia.
 * 1) a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
 * a)I assume you mean sanctionable or disruptive canvassing? If so, that is a form of disruptive notification where the intent or end result is a skewing of consensus discussion.  b)It can include either one if the end result is disrupting a discussion.
 * 1) 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?
 * I've run in to cases before where a new editors additions destroyed an article. Typically in those situations I edit an earlier version of the article and then include any good information the editor added, but in its proper format.  My edit summary includes info on the version I reverted to and the author who's edits I included.  There can be cases when an editor continually disrupts articles without doing anything that would actually improve the article -- even if the edits are still in good faith, if they can't be educated, rollblock/blocking etc might be in order. Shell babelfish 01:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I did make a mistake on question 3 - it should read as follows.
 * 1) 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)

Apologies. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer doesn't change I'm afraid. Consensus decisions should be respected by the community or the decision should be discussed if new points can be made that might change the outcome.  Relation to the group making the style decision isn't a factor. However, Wikipedia doesn't work by "right" or "imposing" either.  Shell babelfish 16:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from 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). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Guy's idea hits the nail on the head -- consensus can change, but that doesn't require constant free editing of policy. The policies have eroded over time due to some well-meaning and some biased editing.  Its difficult to acclimate new editors to Wikipedia when the policies no longer say what you think they do, or don't reflect actual practice.  Policies should be simple and straightforward; a lot of instruction creep is going on as we try to cover every case wikilawyers come up with.  It wouldn't be a bad idea to strip down the policies ensuring they reflect actual practice and then protect them.  Consensus changes can still easily be implemented. Shell babelfish 18:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blue Tie

 * 1) Can/Should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?
 * Arbcom has enough craziness without getting into creating policy. The community has sometimes taken ArbCom cases and developed or changed policy because of them -- it should stay that way.
 * 1) Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member? --Blue Tie 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. I've stayed mostly out of that area so far.  I think that do your research properly, write responsibly and play nice with others should just about cover the rules. I understand why people expand on those ideas, but I don't think I'm the right person to be writing policy -- I'd be more likely to try to simplify them than add more. Shell babelfish 23:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from 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".  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 17:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree. Registration allows us to hear from more editors and judge those voices appropriately.  While there are some IP addresses that are static and have been with us editing anonymously in that manner for some time, they are the exception.  We can judge a registered accounts familiarity with Wikipedia and their history -- with IP addresses, we would be judging people on actions that might not have been theirs.  Also, especially in the case of dynamic IPs, we'd have quite the headache if different people wanted to vote using the same IP address -- imagine the nightmare the AOL ranges could be; editors would be excluded since we're unlikely to start pulling MAC addresses or the like to ensure double-voting does not occur.   Shell babelfish 19:51, 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. 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


 * Its my understanding that the list is used to allow arbitrators to freely discuss ongoing cases or issues. Its also a mechanism for cases to be brought to the Arbiters' attention, especially in the case of banned users who want the ban reviewed.  While I understand the purpose of asking for the opinion of older ArbCom members and other trusted editors, I'm not sure that the closed ArbCom list is the place for that.  As far as case participants though, that's opening up a can of worms that would be better left alone.  The ArbCom needs to be able to discuss things frankly and not have its discussions brought in to muddy up cases further.

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


 * There should only be two reasons that information used to decide ArbCom cases would be given privately: First, if it violates privacy in some manner, such as outing an editor, revealing IPs etc. The second would be cases of WP:BEANS.  Otherwise, if it is evidence on a case, it should go with the other evidence.

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


 * I would support that. If an Arbitrator needs to recuse themselves, it would be better for their comments to be made publicly.

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 think the community has lost control of the committee. The majority of the time, the committee issues decisions based on policies the community wrote and current trends in the community.  Occasionally, when something new comes up, the committee still tries to judge how the community feels or look at what best serves the project.  If changes need to be made to the Arbitration Policy the community can come together to show a consensus for how those changes should be made; I doubt the ArbCom is simply going to ignore it. Shell babelfish 06:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional question from Irpen
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 02:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ArbCom elections differ greatly from most other on-wiki decisions because it really is just a vote. Many voters choose not give any information about why they voted the way they did.  Given this, I imagine determining an actual consensus is rather difficult and I don't envy Jimbo having to wade in to it. Nobody is perfect, but given Jimbo's history, I believe the he usually takes a great deal of time and care when making a decision and always has the best interests of the project in mind.  So regardless of whether I would get passed over for someone who had less support votes or vice versa, I trust that Jimbo has a good reason for his choices.  I also trust that if Jimbo completely screwed up, the community isn't just going to sit back and watch it happen either.  Its a good system of checks and balances that has worked for us in the past; if it ain't broke... Shell babelfish 03:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Mrs.EasterBunny
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 I can't remember the parties involved in similar cases that illustrate the point better. On occasion, I have seen what looks like an editing admin block someone unjustly, perhaps because of a dispute in editing an article that both of them are editing but that the blocked editor was not editing an extreme 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 misconduct excuse the second? Or is the second one misconduct (socks) much more serious and punishable? (This is not an easy answer because excusing admin actions would tend to increase the workload of ArbCom because it allows admin to act on whim. However, excusing the second misconduct might seem to encourage socks). In the SevenofDiamonds case, there doesn't seem to be any ArbCom determination of the merits of his/her edits. If they were entirely reasonable, would you have advocated a lesser punishment or no punishment?

The above issue has some similarities with the Durova / !! case where some say that !! was doing no disruption. Please note that I am not asking your opinion about the Durova case because it involves a 2nd issue (e-mail). This may be another "content vs. behavior - what should be ArbCom's priority" Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think its always important to look at the context of someone's actions. If someone is wrongly blocked and creates a sock to edit, its not as big a deal as an editor who is rightly blocked and creates a sock to edit.  It also depends on their behavior from the sock -- if they create it just to continue editing, that's not nearly as bad as creating it just to vandalize.


 * There's no one-size-fits all answer for issues that come before the ArbCom. There are principles, history and community decisions that can help guide the committee to its answers, but there's no reason to think the committee should blindly proceed without thoroughly considering the aspects of the case. Shell babelfish 18:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from wbfergus
What is your position on the following? wbfergus undefinedTalk 15:46, 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?


 * I assume you're referring to a specific case here, most likely the ongoing WP:OR issues. Major policy changes generally require a high percentage of editors agreeing to the proposed change, however, even a high percentage doesn't mean policy will necessarily be changed.  For instance, no matter how many editors agree, it wouldn't be appropriate to change WP:V to suggest that sources shouldn't be required.  Its not appropriate for any editor to block legitimate change, but again, policies can be special cases and the specific situation needs to be considered; there's just no general rule to be followed here for every situation.


 * And no, I think you misunderstand the intent of policies and guidelines. Both are certainly enforceable and outline the standards expected of editors when participating at Wikipedia.Shell babelfish 19:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)




 * 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 21:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Pinkville
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) 22:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)