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

Note from Mercury

I'm going to bullet my responses for reading ease. Thanks, Mercury 03:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if I miss your question, I do plan on getting back to it. Mercury 13:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

• I do feel the process it a bit lengthy, however, I have not observed any facets falling through the cracks. The entire arbitration process takes too long in my opinion. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but from the outside looking in, it takes a while to complete. I don't see anything hasty about the process. As far as a remedy? I don't desire to change the process, I can affect my part however. Participation. That is key.

1. 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 03:14, 11/14/2007

ArbCom practice:

1. To what degree should ArbCom look at and treat administrators differently from non-administrators? Article writers from other-task WPians?

• Historically administrators are held to a higher behavioral standard.

1. Why do so many nationalist conflicts reach ArbCom? Why so often involving lots of editors? Does ArbCom need to look at these topics, articles, or editors differently in some way? Is there a link between content and behavior?

Views/experience:

1. If you could by fiat change one WP rule, policy, guideline, or practice, what would you choose? Why?

• I would not. But if I could, it would be our three revert rule. I believe the 3RR rule is a bit... restrictive and editors need to be encouraged to help resolve behavioral issues, case by case.

You:

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

• I can not seem to find one, I've looked. I may not have changed my views, but I have accepted consensus contrary to me view before. I've proposed a merge at WT:3RR that appears to not be generating consensus in my favor, I'm about to remove the merge tag for example.

1. Last year the community nominated what looked like a solid bunch of Arbitrators. Yet 10 months later it turns out that several had very spotty levels of ArbCom activity. Do you think that this was at all predictable? And if so, how? Do you think you would serve for a full three year term? Why?

• It would be difficult to predict human behavioral to an absolute certainty, and I won't question why we have had "spotty ArbCom activity". I can tell you that I'll affect my part. As I have noted elsewhere, participation is key. I will serve a three year term... without burning out. I have always been that type of person.

1. I've seen it written that to be a good arbitrator, a WPian needs to first be a good editor. Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment? How do you consider your own editing?

• With all things on the English Wikipedia, the goal here is to write the pedia. I believe editing gives folks a good perspective when working in the processes.

1. Would the ArbCom be diminished if you were not elected? If yes, how?

• I honestly don't know. A lot of good candidates running this election cycle.

Thank you. Jd2718 03:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

• It really depends on the editor. Is the editor willing to work, or does the editor show no sign of return. I'm in favor of lessening restrictions, if they work. But to quote another resoected editor... you can not squeeze blood from a turnip.

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

• Factors that need to be considered are aggravating and mitigating both. Is there someone provoking the editor? Is the editor unprovoked. It's no secret I hold civility in high esteem, and in an environment such as this, with a goal such as ours, it is especially important.

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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

• A sysop should have the tools removed if they are continually causing disruption to the project with those tools. Reapplication of the tools I believe should be always a community thing. However, I'll say that it is all dependent on the circumstances. Deleting a page in bad faith is less offensive than blocking even one good editor in bad faith.

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

• There are many things that could cause me to consider a community ban for review. If consensus we unclear or the basis required a broad interpretation of our practice or policy. These two things come to my mind.

5. Two recent cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Wikipedia: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?

• Participation is key in this scenario. Further discussion or examination of the issue are required. In this situation where the committee would be unable to form a decision, there would need to be discussio among the committee. I don't see anything good in drawing out a case.

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for that. Distilling into one word. "Participate..."

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?---- ragesoss (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral point of view is just that, neutral. A SPOV can be biased an non neutral depending on where in the world you are in the source of the POV.

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 18:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Facts need to be reliably sourced, and the article needs to be neutral. The above becomes a problem when we move away from those two. I don't necessarily believe the article needs to contain a whole great deal of partisan debates, but this is more a of a content issue with me.

You say there are lots of other good candidates this cycle. Pleas name three of them, and explain what characteristics would make them good arbitrators. Cool Hand Luke 05:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahhh, well, for those who want to see whom I am supporting, you will have to wait untill voting begins. :)

• However, the qualities I'm looking for include a good history of cluefulness, and an ability to understand dispute resolution. I need the arbitrators to solve problems and be clueful enough to look beyond the surface.

^{Actually I stole this one from Picaroon but it seems worth asking}. 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.

• Well... I am rather embarrassed by my DVD porn collection, so I'll keep any alternates to myself. :)

• On a serious note, any alternates when I am elected will be disclosed to the rest of the committee and any foundation officer who asks.

1. What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committe? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? I (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The arbitrators work very hard, and I'm not going to question the process. I respect what they do, and I'm on the outside looking in. I don't really have a large desire to shake things up and change the Arbitration process. I can affect what I do on the committee however.

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) 22:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for this question. I have not followed an RFC/U that closely, but I think I'll be able to answer your question. The RFC/U is not really a court or system for fact finding, but more of a "Hey John, I don't think your ok in doing this... Paul, Sally, could you come tell us what you think, let us all give you our opinion." It is a place where we observe an editors a possibly troblesome, and we actually request comments on them. That is all it is there for, to get comments for the editor. Now what the editor does with them, thats more of a dispute resolution thing. If the editor takes the comments to heart and changes, then ok. If the editor is troublesome and ignores the comments, then continues same actions. We have some options available to us depending on what it is we are dealing with.

What do you want Wikipedia to be ten years from now? Marlith ^T/C 18:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, for this challenging question. A decade from now is a going to take a good deal of forward looking. I want to see more academic areas accept Wikipedia as a more reliable source then what we are seeing it as now. I think the open editing style of wiki is needed. I would not like to see this aspect change. However else it goes, the community in hand with the foundation will drive the direction of the project. I have a small voice, along with everyone else. Mercury 20:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• An arbitrator should be as active as possible, I don't see any issue with being active in all cases, so long as the case load permits it.

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

• An arbitrator should comment, but is not required. I support that there may be cases where an arbitrator would not comment,

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?

• Long term contributers should know better.

1. How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?

• Civility is a bit more of a complicated behavior issue, than the 3RR metric would be. We already have a policy that tells us what we might do on a 3RR violation. Civility is really going to depend on the editor, and the violation.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 12:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just what I do daily. Sometimes I'm in the mood to create a new article, sometimes I'm in the mood for article maintenance. You are more than welcome to browse my contributions.

• Some off the contributions along the life of the account include...

• Some articles I started

1. Lymphocytic Interstitial Pneumonia
2. Cardiac event monitor
3. Cephalometry
4. Intraoperative radiation therapy
5. Forensic animation
6. Adrenomyeloneuropathy
7. Aortitis
8. Band keratopathy
9. Amygdalohippocampectomy

They all need work, but I'm proud. If I had not started them, would they be there? I want to see GA out of the lase one. I'd had a couple featured at T:DYK.

• So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Respectfully, what is or is not in my inbox, is my business. I will give you the same courtesy not to ask about your email inbox. I love this project, but there have to be some areas where I can have my own privacy.

• Although you had been nominated for adminship by Durova and had a "Durova for ArbCom" banner on your userpage, you used your admin privileges to try to close and lock down discussion and criticism about Durova's recent actions in an ANI thread. Do you feel that using your admin privileges in this way was appropriate? Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I can relate the nomination or the banner with the use of my tools. The thread had become very sloppy and abusive. It was time to move on.

To follow up on your non-denial of involvement in the secret list, let me ask you an abstract question. Instead of making it personal, let me pose this in an abstract way:

Let say that someone emails me and twenty other people to inform us about a specific on-wiki event. I choose to become involved in that specific event-- offering my opinion, my vote, my reverts, whatever.

When I involve myself, am I obliged to inform the community about how I learned of the event, so as to avoid a violation of WP:CANVASS? If I fail to do so, have I been a party to stealth canvassing or votestacking? Or, is it okay to keep the collaborations a secret, so long is the conversation is held off-wiki, because my inbox is my "private business"? --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I will leave this to the individual's conscience. I don't think one should need to tell the group why you are there. There are ways to respond to disruptive canvassing, recommended in the guideline. In the past, I have been asked to participate one way in a discussion, and after looking at the discussion, participated in the opposite way. That is to say, no matter your request, I will make an independent review. If it helps your cause or not, that is the risk you take in asking for my participation.

• To address some concerns above: I will never disclose the contents of email correspondance without explicit permission. So that being said, I will not confirm or deny the contents of my inbox. Special:Emailuser/Mercury is sacrosanct. Editors need to feel that they can email me for guidance without fear that I will repost. This is especially true when I mentor editors via an unblock arrangement or related tasks. Note that I am in Category:Eguor admins.

• "Another goal of an eguor admin is to serve as Wikipedia's loyal opposition should any cabal inadvertently form. Eguorness does not equal disruption or the feeding of trolls, yet it does mean willingness to challenge consensus with polite and topical discussion. Sometimes it means being a gadfly.

• Eguor administrators promise to offer a fair hearing to editors who present a well-documented case that they've been mishandled in some way. Burden of evidence rests squarely on the shoulders of the person who makes the assertion. If you think your situation didn't get proper attention and you connect all the dots with solid evidence, but don't want to get accused of forum shopping, contact an eguor administrator."

• Editors need to feel they have confidence in my inbox. We have the block email feature of the MediaWiki software if it gets abused however.

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)[reply]

• Wikiprojects serve to focus energy. They do not own articles. Policy enforcement is something every editor can do.

• My definition con canvassing is shared with this guideline. However, if I post a discussion to an IRC channel, without any recommendation, I do not believe there is anything wrong with that. I've started threads on discussion before and posted a single message to the wikipedia channel, nothing else. This is to garner participation. However, if I post that single message, then follow up with my opinion, that would be the wrong way.

There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing[1]. 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)[reply]

• Arbitrators do not generally make policy, the community at large does. So answering as a prospective member of the ArbCom is something I will not do.

• Personally, I disagree. Regardless of the edits made to a longstanding policy, we always work on the spirit of the policy, as opposed to the letter.

1. Should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?

• The AC does not create policy. Now I'm sure the AC could urge the community to develop policy, but the AC should not do so itself.

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

• I'm sure I will participate in discussions to develop policy, but that will be as separate.

--Blue Tie 13:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Mailing list

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?

Secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators

What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?

Recusals

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?

Community oversight over the arbitration policy

Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?