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

Questions from 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?

   Some cases do take too long, but there are a number of good and bad reason that can be attributable to this. Real life and inactivity and are unavoidable yet prevalent factors in the length of some cases. Sometimes a case may stagnate due to what can be perceived as a lack of interest when in reality it may just be that the case doesn't really need arbcom's attention and may be better solved at a talk page or a community forum. I feel that some cases may be acted on too quickly, not necessarily hastily, in a "let's get it over with already" fashion. I intend to very carefully consider the acceptance of cases and act on accepted cases in a timely and considerate fashion.

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?

   In general, I feel that cases involving remedies such as temporary desysoppings or bans (i.e. a week or so) are overly punitive and reek of attempts to satisfy those involved rather than do what's best for Wikipedia. Technical actions (i.e. blocking, desysopping) should only be used as last resort, preventative measures that help to maintain the integrity and editing environment of Wikiepdia.

Thanks, east.718 at 06:51, 11/14/2007

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?

Edit warriors are a interesting subject. They can be good, because after all, it's still a form collaborative editing (albeit a disruptive form), and they can be bad. When an persistent edit warrior fails to get a clue and continues and continues to revert and disrupt the encyclopedia, it's time for intervention. If they fail to grasp the concept of a talk page and communication via it, it's time impose a solution. I do believe that reformation is possible and intend to emphasize that as a remedy via mentorship, topic bans etc. If an edit warrior comes to the committee and it is shown that all attempts at helping and stopping the user have failed, then the committee should consider a ban via blocking. The decision to ban someone should not be one that is come to lightly. We must consider whether or not the user's presence and edits are ultimately detrimental to the encyclopedia and our community. If the drama that results from a user wastes editor's time and hinders development, the committee should seriously consider a ban.

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 is a big issue on Wikipedia, as is "personal attacks". Personally, I feel that the personal attacks policy is interpreted entirely to broadly. While it's reasonable to expect a certain level of decorum, it's unreasonable to expect editors to maintain an unrealistic air of false goodness. The real world is inescapable and you should expect to encounter it on Wikipedia as well as anywhere else. That being said, editors persistently offending and disrupting Wikipedia should be stopped for the sake of the community and the encyclopedia. Once again, if the drama produced by a user outweighs the potential they have for good, actions need to be taken.

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 user should be desyopped when it has been shown that they have repeatedly and consistently acted in a manner that undermines the policies of Wikipedia and the patience of it's community. Desysopping is of course a last resort that means the committee believes that the user is beyond hope in terms of reformation. I think longer temporary desyoppings (like the one linked) can be useful in certain cases. When an administrator shows that they are dedicated to the project and have its best interests at heart, desysopping can help bring them back down to Earth. Once the sysop bit is given back however, it should be made clear that the user is on a short leash and should be careful.

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

The committee should consider an appeal only after the issue has been brought before the community and the community has failed to reach a decision.

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?

Assuming the issue is still current and a good number of arbitrators are active, the committee should petition all non-involved members of arbcom to get involved and if still unable to reach a decision, the committee can let the community know and the community can decide whether or not they'd like another go at resolving the issue. This should be done once the committee determines that they can't come to a useful conclusion.

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Mercury

1. What is the currently accepted definition of a community ban?

The removal of a users editing privileges when the community has reached a consensus and decided that their patience is exhausted and no administrator is willing to unblock.

2. If you could by fiat change "community ban" what would it's new definition be?

I think it is fine in its current form. I would only seek to eliminate quick and dirty ban discussions that feature a lot of this (though the closing of the community sanctions noticeboard has helped). -- John Reaves 07:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, Mercury 14:24, 14 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 21:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral/impartial (sorry that's as close as I can get to one word).

Question from Ragesoss

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?---- ragesoss (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with SPOV but I do know that Wikipedia was founded on NPOV and SPOV shouldn't compromise that. John Reaves 04:46, 26 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 18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If the "why" is incorporated in a neutral fashion, I think it can be used encyclopedically. I think there is a line between encyclopedic content and debate, or summary of views, that shouldn't be crossed , but when it is, people are still able to recognize it and fix the problems.

Question from I

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) 17:50, 18 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?

(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) 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not comment on any specific cases, but I will say a few things. Currently, the RfC process is hit or miss. Often times, they exacerbate drama rather than quelling it or offering a reasonable solution or proposal. They are too often used as formalities in order to qualify for arbcom or as a mechanism for revenge or disruption.

Questions from Piotrus

1. Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict of interests in?
2. If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?
3. 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?
4. How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Arbitrator is a volunteer position so I think arbitrators should be allowed to take a break every once and a while but be overall active in arbitration. Though I do expect arbitrators to let the community know if they intend on taking an extended break so that there are no expectations of participation.

2. If they are active with a specific case, yes. Otherwise we shouldn't force arbitrators to comment on all cases (this would probably lead to a higher burnout rate). In fact, we should probably make sure arbitrators are working in the mainspace every once in a while ;).

3. Mostly no, but to some degree yes. Well known contributors are obviously more involved and more likely to be subjected to stress and frustration and therefore more likely to occasionally post an uncivil comment or two. The community will know, based on previous experience with the editor, that this isn't a habitual thing and isn't a serious threat to the encyclopedia. New users exhibiting incivility should be warned and made aware of our standards and policies and hopefully be able to acclimate into our culture.

4. When a user's civility distresses/disrupts the project or its editors, measures should be taken to prevent this. This first measure should be informal of formal mediation to try and reason with the user. If that fails place a user on a strict civility parole or banning them from the topics that cause their incivility (if applicable). Blocking or banning a user for their incivilty should occur when it's determined that the issue harms the encyclopedia and blocking them will prevent this.

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 12:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My last 500 mainspace contribs can be found here. The edits that aren't reverts or admin actions are mainly cleanup, though I did create a stub or two and do some expansion work.

Question from Icestorm815

As you know, arbitrators are required to have a cool head in any type of situation. Would you please be willing to explain what may have gone down in this discussion and why it resorted to rude language? Thank you for your time. Icestorm815 (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "lose my cool", I was frustrated by the user's failure to assume good faith and replied using would I would consider "emphatic" or "intense" language, it's nothing I would retract. What is considered "rude" is a subjective notion and I tend to be far more accepting of language than most of society. Words are just words, I could have said "meanie" and I doubt anyone would have cared. That being said, I wouldn't let my personal opinions affect the process of arbitration and I would keep my language inline with what we consider to be civil.

Question from Rjd0060

Similar to the above question, could you explain this also? Specifically, what do you think about administrators blocking users that they are directly involved in conflict with? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That rule, like all rules, has exceptions. If a user is clearly doing something wrong and blockable, what would be the point in getting someone else to block them? I doubt any other administrators would have a problem with me blocking that user and getting someone else to do it for me would be a pointless formality.

Questions from Miranda

1. What is your interpretation of biographies of living persons? If libelous information is continuously entered into an article of a dead person, should this case be treated differently?

   That unsourced divisive/negative/contentious/etc material about living people should be removed from Wikipedia to protect their integrity and ours. No, dead people deserve the same respect.

2. If a user has died, (sad, I know), would you block the account? (dif)

   Yes (now that I know the reasoning behind it).

3. If a user vandalizes with an IP, is blocked, then later creates a sockpuppet with the same modus operandi, would you tag the registered user as well as the IP with an SSP? (dif)

   I'm not sure how that diff is relevant to the question, but I meant to remove this and I'm not sure how I ended removing those posts. To answer the question: yes, I probably would.

4. What is the main goal of your essay "Stop Whining Already"? Please explain the reason of your response when a person opposed to this essay, as shown here.

   The page is in response to people overusing the personal attacks policy. That person has not opposed to the essay, if you go into edit mode, you'll notice that the user who called me an "asshole" on the talk page included <!-- ATTENTION: HUMOR FOLLOWS. --> so I followed with an equally humorous reply given the context.

5. Are you against the rule no personal attacks because of "Stop Whining Already"?

   No, of course not.

6. If a disruptive person continuously stalked another user and made personal attacks with their account, would you as a potential arbitration member vote to ban the disruptive user?
7. Would you participate in arbitration cases as a neutral party if your Wikipedia friends were involved with the allegations?

   I'm not sure what you mean by "Wikipedia friends", but I would participate in any case where I'm not involved in the dispute or any action relating to the case.

8. Are you active on IRC? If so, which Wikipedia related chatrooms are you active in?

   Yes. A list of the channels I'm active in can be found at m:User:John Reaves.

9. When two users -- established or not -- get in a dispute, how will you act as a neutral, unbiased party as an arbitration member? (dif, dif, and dif)

   I'm not sure I understand the question. The only bias those diffs show is my bias towards preventing needless drama and discussion.

Questions from Rschen7754

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)

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) 00:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No.

Question from Risker

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)

I think it is a good idea. It will get rid of the edit warring and foster healthy discussion while preventing gradual POVish changes. John Reaves 05:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blue Tie

1. Can/should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?

I think arbcom is best suited to clarify existing policy or to set precedents that help shape policy change.

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member? --Blue Tie 13:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't thought about it, we'll see what happens.

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 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking but I'll give answering a try (feel free to let me know if I'm missing something). I think I would for it because simply requiring logging-in would lead to a lot less drama and community shake-ups.

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.

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?

I believe that it should only contain current and former arbitrators along with Jimbo. I believe that former arbitrators are valuable sources of guidance and that if their trust were called into question, they would be removed from the list. I don't believe what you are proposing (i.e. read only access for certain threads) is technically possible.

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?

Barring extenuating circumstances (i.e. private or otherwise sensitive information) all arbitration communication should be done or eventually made public.

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?

I would hope that an arbitrator would have enough ethical fortitude to voluntarily exclude themselves from any private communication involving a case in which they've recused themselves.

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?

No. Since arbcom is used in cases when the community is unable to decide, I support it's self-governance. Though I would certainly strongly consider the communities input on matter relating to arbcom policy.

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 it's one that I recently saw because I can't remember the parties involved in similar cases. On occasion, I have seen an editing admin block someone because of a dispute in editing an article that both of them are editing and the block seemed questionable because there is no overt POV. The blocked editor then probably feels the block is unjustified and creates a sock. Many times, people running for WP office will cite a clear cut case of someone with bad editing and bad behavior. However, what if there is good editing and improper block (which would point to admin misconduct about content), followed by sock creation justified because the block was improper (which would point to editor misconduct about behavior)? Does the first crime excuse the second? Or is the second one crime much more serious and punishable? (This is not an easy question because excusing the first crime by the admin would tend to increase the workload of ArbCom because it allows admin to do a lot with less oversight. However, excusing the second crime might seem to encourage socks). Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from wbfergus

What is your position on the following?

• A policy page has had a very active discussion for many months. All sides (loosely termed 'pro-change', 'anti-change' and 'issue-specific') of proposed changes have made their cases back and forth numerous times. The 'pro-change' group is mainly users, with a few Admins. The 'anti-change' group is mainly Admins (including those who helped write the policy over the years) and a few users. The 'issue-specific' group is a mixed collection of users and Admins, but mainly users. All three groups constitute around 40-50 people total, per announcements on the Village Pump and related policies, to garner more widespread community involvement either way.

1. After numerous discussions, and comments over a span of several days to several weeks on specific issues, what should constitute a consensus? 60%, 75%, 90%, or unanimous approval?
2. If around 75% agree to a change, is it appropriate for Admins (especially those who helped write the policy) to revert changes and protect the page from further edits against their approval?
3. Is it appropriate for 6 or 7 Admins to more or less block changes to a policy through protection and reverts, when very active discussions have been ongoing and the majority of those participating constructively (not just saying "No" or "Oppose" without constructive comments) agree to changes?
4. Would it be appropriate for such a policy page which does clearly have a disputed section to have a tag in that section stating that section is under dispute and to participate on the talk page?
5. Should policies solely dictate acceptable and unacceptable content, behaviour, etc., or should they also define Wikipedia-specific terms and definitions (without stating so) that conflict with usage in different disciplines, or should such terms and definitions be more appropriately suited in a guideline linked to and from the policy?
6. Do you agree that policies are meant for enforcement or 'enforceable actions', while guidelines are meant to give guidance?

wbfergus ^Talk 15:33, 12 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 ^Talk 21:13, 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) 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)