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

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) 12:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd like to see the entire "request for comment on user conduct" process gotten rid of. The original intended purpose of that process was to make it clearer where the community in relation to a particular user's behaviour, and I suppose it could be seen to have worked for a while back then. These days, however, (especially considering RfCs are toothless, and are generally ignored by the arbcom) I think it only serves to create more drama. Rebecca 10:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blue Tie

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

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member? --Blue Tie 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As for your first question, in short, I'd say no. As a general rule, the arbitration committee does not create policy, but instead refers it back to the community to work out how they want to handle the situation. The only place the arbcom has traditionally had in that (and I agree with) is trying to work out what interpretations of existing policy have community support when disputes arise.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the second question. I don't believe anyone's standing as an arbitration committee member gives them greater sway in policy-making, and I'm not sure why it would matter either way. However, I generally refrain from involvement in matters of policy generation, as don't generally like involving myself in the drama that almost inevitably comes with it, and prefer to spend my time writing articles. I can't see that position changing whether or not I'm elected to the arbitration committee. Rebecca 10:44, 1 December 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.

1. 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?

2. I'd like to invite you to expand upon your remarks regarding the current arbitration committee versus the committee during your previous tenure as an Arbitrator. Specifically, can you highlight any particular case or event that changed how the committee operates? Do you advocate a return to the Arbitration Committee of 2005, or would you see the committee go in a new direction entirely? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Being an effective arbitrator in one word? Patience. The types of disputes that come before the arbitration committee these days are often pretty complex and unclear, and require the committee to take the time to work out how best to resolve them for the good of the encyclopedia. There are quite a few others: neutrality, commitment, the ability to keep an eye on where the community actually stands, so as not to get out of touch, but that's probably the most important one.

The arbitration committee of 2005 was a very different beast to the one we have today. I was one of the first elected arbitrators to the committee, replacing the initial arbitrators appointed by Jimbo in 2004. The first committee had been very timid about acting at all, due to uncertainty about their mandate, and were essentially allowing rampant trolling (of the sort which today would be dealt with with a community ban long before getting anywhere near arbcom) to go unchecked. We were faced with changing the culture of the committee, and because of that, we have the situation we have today, where the cases the committee handles are far more complex, often dealing with pretty good users in messy situations. So, to put it simply: it wouldn't be possible to return the committee to the position it was in in 2005. The similarities between the two lie in the dysfunctionality of the committee: it was in 2004, and it is now. We need to eliminate the backlog of cases as best we can, and we need to get the committee to re-earn the trust that it has lost. I've helped it do so before, and I'd like the chance to help do so again. Rebecca 10:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ali'i

You write in your statement that you want to help the committee facilitate writing an encyclopedia. In what ways do you hope to do that? What is the current committee doing that is detrimental to writing an encyclopedia? Is writing an encyclopedia the main goal? Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the ultimate consideration in arbitration decisions should be the impact of that decision on the encyclopedia. This means, for instance, that a user who writes good content but has other issues should not be banned if possible (with other sanctions being preferred), unless they are ultimately doing more harm than good to the actual project. Another example might be an admin who has always had a good record, and makes a bad slip-up once: it probably does not serve the project to lose that person, and thus this should be taken into consideration in determining how to deal with their conduct. As for your second question, I believe the current committee has completely lost sight of that goal, which is a large part of the reason I consider some of the recent deliberations I've been reading on the mailing list to be rather bizarre. As for your third question: simply, yes. That's what we're here for. Rebecca 10:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern

Since you've already been on ArbCom once, your voting record may speak for a lot of this. Since I don't know your record that well and since you say you've changed since then, I'm giving you the same questions I've spammed everyone else's questions page with. Feel free to refer to me to voting record in any case where you feel it answers my question better than your words would.

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

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

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

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

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?

This last question is specifically for you.

6. You point out in your candidate statement that you've become "surlier" and that you "once swore that I'd never go near the place [by which I assume you mean ArbCom] again after [you] stepped down". Do you think your dissatisfaction with how ArbCom runs could lead to burnout?

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think these (1-5) are all good questions, but I'm not sure that they can be answered as general principles. One of the things I've noticed both as an arbitrator, and as an arbitrator emeritus on the mailing list, is that the sorts of disputes that come before the arbitration committee are rarely clear-cut. One edit war may not be best resolved the same way as the next edit war. There are degrees of incivility, and these must be weighed against the sorts of considerations I illustrated in my response to Ali'i. In essence, I'd say all of these really do need to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

As for your question to me, I won't say that it isn't a possibility. Burning out is quite common: it generally happens to three or four arbitrators every year. I should say here that I did burn out in 2005 - I joined the committee, helped reform it, was fiercely active in keeping down the backlogs for some months, but ultimately reached a point around mid-year where I had simply had enough. I thus decided to step down, and was replaced by another capable arbitrator. In nominating this time around, I'm making it clear that I'm in it for the long haul, but if I do, I'll do as I did last time: promptly step down and ensure that a replacement is appointed or elected quickly so the committee isn't slowed down by my absence. Rebecca 10:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Cool Hand Luke

Thanks for volunteering! You say that some recent discussions have been bizarre. Could you elaborate?

I assume you mean that the comments are steeped in the administrative culture with a poor understanding of article-writing, but I'm not sure how this would be evident. In so far as you can protect privacy of the arbitrators and disputes, could you give an example? Cool Hand Luke 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I might have put this best in my response to Ali'i's question further up the page. I can try to elaborate if that's insufficient, but I'm wary of commenting on specific cases. Rebecca 10:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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?
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 22:17, November 30, 2007

Quite simply, the arbitration committee takes too long to close cases. For most of this year, we've been seeing requests sitting on WP:RFA for so long that they nearly expire, and cases that may well drag on for months for no good reason. This isn't a new problem: we've had it for most of the history of the committee since 2004. However, the most simple solution is pretty obvious: get new, keen people in, and start regularly voting without needing to be harassed by the clerks. We kept the backlog right down for the first half of 2005 that way, and we can do the same again now.

As for your second question, I've often disagreed with proposed principles: I did it before I got elected, I did it as an arbitrator, and I've argued numerous times since on the arbitration list that proposed decisions have been unwise. Sometimes I've been able to talk people out of actually voting those remedies up, other times I've been less successful. However, I'm wary about naming any from specific cases, as taking a look through the completed cases list, several of the cases I've disagreed with the current committee on may well come before the committee again in the future. Rebecca 10:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

In disputes such as those over naming conventions, working towards consensus, and where that isn't possible, respect for differences, is the key. I'm generally reluctant to talk about specific cases, but I will say that I thought the committee handled the case you cite pretty well. WikiProjects are there to organise work on articles in particular area: they have not (nor have they ever had) any right to own articles in an area. The editors editing in that area (and thus participating in the WikiProject) may well come to a consensus about article style, in which case it would probably be a good idea to consult with them before making changes, but they don't have any specific right by virtue of being a WikiProject.

I think canvassing is one of those issues where the best response is "I know it when I see it". Project newsletters are good things, but if they start advocating a particular vote on a particular policy dispute, then maybe not so much. Mentioning a vote on IRC is fine - harassing people to vote a particular way less fine. It's something that needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

As for your last question, I don't really think that's a matter for the arbitration committee, as that sort of editor really doesn't tend to come before the committee. It's more of an issue for our policies on community banning, which is another kettle of fish entirely. Rebecca 10:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

questions from jd2718

1. How big's your watchlist, and what sort of stuff do you keep on it?
2. Lots of ArbCom cases are related to nationalist disputes. Why? Is en.wikipedia handling these topics, articles, or editors badly? Should ArbCom be responding to them differently?
3. You've been around long enough, I assume, to have taken part in several discussions of policy changes. Is there one that stands out where, in retrospect, you feel you argued for something that worked out badly? Please elaborate.
4. Is it really necessary to have an Arbitration Committee? And if not, what alternatives might exist?

Thank you. Jd2718 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

1. At the moment, 3,525 pages. It's mostly Australian content these days, although I do tend to keep an eye on a few developing countries.
2. There will always be nationalists, and the more hardline ones will always be convinced that their national perspective is absolutely right. That isn't going to change, and it isn't really going to be affected by anything we can do. The question for us is how well any one editor can play well with other editors who may not hold the same views - and that's something that has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
3. I've been wrong numerous times in policy discussions, as have all of us who've been around a while. As one example, I remember vehemently arguing with Jimbo on IRC about his decision to bar anonymous editors from article creation. In hindsight, he was right on the money, and the project was much better for that call. Rebecca 10:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Most definitely. I became an active editor just after the arbitration committee was created, but I remember that first year when it pretty much did nothing. We wound up with intractable disputes that just went on, and on, and on - it was not pleasant, and a lot of good people left. It wasn't for no reason that every single person elected in the two elections that year (two arbs resigned mid-year, so there were temp elections before the inaugural ones in December 04) was for the committee taking a much more active role in the affairs of the project. I'm certainly open to suggestions of alternatives, as the current model is far from perfect, but it definitely beats what we had before, and I've not seen any better suggestions so far. Rebecca 10:44, 1 December 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) 00:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've probably put this better in my answers above. In short (I've just answered all that above questions, it's quite late, and I've been up since 4.30am, so I'm getting a bit scattered): the current committee is somewhat dysfunctional. It isn't getting cases dealt with fast enough, and I believe it has lost touch both with the community and the goals of the project, as I responded a little more clearly to Ali'i above. Rebecca 10:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68

Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 13:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep (one of them). I, like the others, skimmed through the email, didn't pay much attention, and didn't respond. I am as bewildered as anyone else as to who Durova claims to have gained the support of before making that block, and I am pretty frustrated that she still hasn't owned up to it after persistent questioning from many people. In light of Durova's continued silence, I'm coming to the conclusion that the "five people" and the supposed arbitrators who consented to !!'s block were simply made up. It has been suggested that she interpreted no response to her "case study" as consent to block, but I would find that more than a little bizarre. Rebecca 14:05, 1 December 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 17:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this is a proposed principle? It strikes me as well, a tad obvious. There are numerous things on Wikipedia that have always been done by accounts-only because the alternative is unworkable. In the given example of these elections, allowing IP voting wouldn't make much sense, because it would give anyone on an ISP with dynamic IPs unlimited votes. Rebecca 22:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not proposed. Thanks for your answer. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 21:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional question from jd2718

In your candidate statement you indicate feelings of unease with the current ArbCom:

...I'm frustrated with the current state of the committee. ...at the moment, I think it's doing as much to hinder as to help [writing the encyclopedia]. I think some of the members of the current committee have lost touch with ... those of us who primarily work on writing articles. ...I've felt that the deliberations on some recent cases have been a little bit bizarre. I'm running because cases are once again taking far too long to process. ...I'm running because I'm frustrated that many of the editors I respect have lost faith in the committee as it now stands to do its job...

Can you expand on this? Please be as detailed and specific as you feel comfortable. Jd2718 01:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the committee being out of touch, I think I probably put this best in my answer to Ali'i above. As I've said earlier, I'm not keen to get into discussions about specific cases, so I don't really want to go into detail about which cases I've questioned the current arbcom on. In terms of cases being slow - I think that's pretty self-explanatory. And on people having lost faith in the arbitration committee - taking a look around recent dramas surrounding dispute resolution on the project, I'm noticing a lot of very good contributors expressing public disenchantment and distrust of the committee. This is a Bad Thing - how can the arbitration committee do its job of resolving disputes properly when it does not have the confidence of many of our best editors? Rebecca 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from TML

You indicated on your userpage that you stepped down from your previous ArbCom tenure to focus on article writing. Do you expect this to happen again this time around? TML 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's possible. As I said in regard to one of the questions above, burnout is inevitable with a body such as the arbitration committee, and we've usually wound up with about four resignations a year for that reason, with several more usually slacking off some towards the end of the year. In nominating, I'm declaring my intent to be here for the long haul, but should I burn out, I have said that I will step down promptly and see that I'm replaced quickly, so as not to disrupt the committee's work by becoming an inactive arbitrator. Rebecca 02:24, 3 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.

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?

Okay, first things first: the arbitration mailing list. I almost always find myself in agreement with you, Geogre, et al, but on this one, I think you're simply barking up the wrong tree. I can only think of one case where arbitration proceedings have involved someone who is on the mailing list, and that concerned Jayjg. From memory, he did not use the mailing list to further his case in any way. The ex-arbitrators on the position fulfill a pretty useful purpose. We don't have any final say over any matters, but we can give advice, and thus we provide something of a sanity check for the committee of the time. I can safely say that all of you would be a lot more pissed at the current committee had it not been for the presence of ex-arbs on numerous occasions saying "hey, this proposal is crazy - perhaps you might want to rethink it". The idea that there's ex-arbs involved in current disputes using their position on the mailing list to influence the outcome is just not true. I honestly wish some of you would consider running for the committee, because I think you'd find if elected that a lot of the concerns you've been raising are simply unfounded.

Now, secret evidence. This is another issue that - although I grant you say it isn't - seems to me to be a bit hypothetical. We get evidence sent directly to the mailing list pretty often, but it's usually because it is indeed of a sensitive nature. It would certainly be of concern if people were using the option of sending material directly to the mailing list to avoid scrutiny of charges being made, but I simply haven't seen any evidence of that happening.

As for recusals, I'll state here that I've generally had a problem with the way the committee has handled recusals in the past. My policy as an arbitrator was that I would recuse where I could be perceived to have a conflict of interest, rather than only where I could be considered a party. I've been frustrated that several members of the current committee have chosen to take a much more narrow definition of when they should step aside from a case, and with a couple in particularly, have at times heard cases when I would say that they've been patently biased. I would have no objection per se to a policy such as you propose, but I do think it would be pretty much impossible to enforce. I'm not sure what can be done about that.

I'm a bit wary about allowing a free-for-all over the arbitration policy, as I think it would tend to be a magnet for drama if folks thought they could try and get themselves a pass by writing loopholes into the policy. I do think the committee should respond to suggested changes from the community, however - I for one would have no problem with the suggested addition in that link, although it is already essentially de facto current practice. Rebecca 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really any. Wikipedia needs to be accurate. NPOV dictates that alternative theories be given attention roughly proportional to their significance, but that's all. Rebecca 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Tony1

I do think you're a good writer/editor, but I'm concerned at (1) a certain uncompromising, hard attitude in disagreements you've had with other WPians, and (2) a seemingly trenchant attidude and behaviour towards what many WPians consider to be overlinking, particularly WRT the linking of simple years. You've had (almost) revert wars with those who've sought to undo what they regard as a blight on the text of many articles, and it has become very personal. I've wondered at times whether you had a vested interest in the writing of year articles, and for this reason have sought to maximise the number of links to them.

Can you tell us whether your attitudes to this issue have evolved over the past, say, year? Tony (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what your attitudes to the troublesome RfC and RfA processes are. Tony (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're overstating the issue a bit there, Tony. Numerous Wikipedians like date links. Numerous Wikipedians don't. I do find it frustrating when people with any particular formatting preference decide to override the preferences of others. It's as simple as that. No, my attitudes haven't changed, and nor should they - it's a formatting preference, not a moral crusade.

As for RfC, I think I put it pretty clearly in my answer to the first question on this page - I think it has long ceased to serve any purpose but to generate drama, and I would rather it be abolished. I think it was worth trying to begin with, and the goals - of trying to pass at least some of the dispute resolution to community consensus - were noble, but it essentially hasn't worked at all in a long time. RfA, too, has been something of a recipe for drama, but I'm not sure what can be done about it - unlike RfC, it can't be simply abolished - and virtually every suggested change I've seen involves making the system less democratic. I'm not sure what the answer is to that one - it's a complicated problem. Rebecca 23:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, which didn't address my concerns about seemingly petulant behaviour in the past. I'm willing to overlook that if, as I suspect, you'd take a measured, non-POV attitude to your role on ArbCom.

Year links: So might the exclusive use of upper case characters be a formatting preference, but we wouldn't allow it. I'm disapppointed in your reponse, and hope that you intend to foster work on the currently appalling state of year articles. I remind you that MOS does fairly strongly state that trivial links should be deprecated.

Related issue: What is your attitude to moves (which appear to be dragging on to nowhere at Bugzilla) to disentangle the full-date autoformatting function from the linking function. When launched a year ago, with 85 signatories and no formal objectors, I was pleased that you said to me that you wouldn't stand in the way of it. I can see the possibility that the issue might be raised higher up the food chain soon.

RfA and RfC: I'd be hoping for a modicum of mediation at RfA, so that when it goes off the rails, it can be steered back. RfC needs to go down the drain. Tony (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Haukur

I'm asking the following of the current top 10 frontrunners in the race.

ArbCom has the power to overrule any decision made by Jimbo in what he refers to as his "traditional capacity within Wikipedia".[1] Under what circumstances would you overturn a decision made by Jimbo? This isn't meant as a trick question - I would be perfectly happy with a simple answer like "I'd consider overruling a decision he made if I thought it was a bad one". But if you'd like to go into more depth or consider some past Jimbo decisions as examples then I'm fine with that too. Haukur 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In all honestly, I'm not sure such a situation is likely to arise. Jimbo is cautious by his nature, and takes a lot of advice before acting - the arbcom being one regular source of such advice. I've vehemently opposed things Jimbo has done before - the ban on anonymous editors creating articles being a prime example - but I think time as generally proven a lot of his calls to be the right ones. Nevertheless, I'm glad the power is there, and I suppose "I'd consider overruling a decision he made if I thought it was a bad one" is pretty correct. Rebecca 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional question from Irpen

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

Jimbo's decisions vs the community support

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.")

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 02:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I remember, Jimmy has always promoted the top X number of candidates for however many positions at the same election, but has occasionally added extra seats to allow sitting arbitrators who do not gain enough of the vote to continue serving. I'll put this simply with regard to me: I will not serve if I'm put that in position. I'll either be elected as one of the top six candidates, or I won't. I have no intention of returning to the arbitration committee without the popular support to do so. Rebecca (talk) 01:41, 8 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. This may be another "content vs. behavior - what should be ArbCom's priority" Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a question that can be simply answered, as in most cases it's going to depend on the facts of a particular dispute. As I've stated above, I believe in putting the writing of an encyclopedia first, so I'm always going to be reluctant to take action against a good contributor unless it's completely unavoidable - so, in that case, content would come first. However, there have been numerous cases over the years where otherwise excellent contributors have been so difficult to work with that they've caused substantial problems - in such cases, there may well be the need to focus on the behaviour in spite of good content. Rebecca (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional question from Tony1

In case you missed it, pasted here from above:

Related issue: What is your attitude to moves (which appear to be dragging on to nowhere at Bugzilla) to disentangle the full-date autoformatting function from the linking function. When launched a year ago, with 85 signatories and no formal objectors, I was pleased that you said to me that you wouldn't stand in the way of it. I can see the possibility that the issue might be raised higher up the food chain soon. Tony (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Year links—rejoinder: So might the exclusive use of upper case characters be a formatting preference, but we wouldn't allow it. I'm disapppointed in your reponse, and hope that you intend to foster work on the currently appalling state of year articles. I remind you that MOS does fairly strongly state that trivial links should be deprecated.

Comment: Your responses to my first questions didn't address my concerns about seemingly petulant behaviour in the past. I'm willing to overlook that if, as I suspect, you'd take a measured, non-POV attitude to your role on ArbCom.

I could really care less about the Bugzilla proposals. I don't oppose them, but I certainly can't blame the developers for having more important things to do. They're busy people, and making a significant technical change because of the date preferences of a small group of users is, unsurprisingly, likely to be pretty low on their priority list.

As for your other questions, quite simply, it is a formatting preference. You and others have one preference, I and others have another preference, and I resent people mass-changing articles in such situations - it's impolite and unnecessarily confrontational. We've seen it with BC-AD, we've seen it with English/US dates, and we've seen it with date linking - some people just must have their way. I much prefer the consensus option used in other such cases - leave articles as you find them, and don't try and enforce your preferences on everyone else. However, I'm frankly sick of the drama, and thus have been refraining on having much to do with this, despite the presence of another friend of yours running around with a bot in the absence of consensus. Rebecca (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm unaware of this "other friend" of mine you're accusing me of having. This, I'm afraid, is an example of your petulant streak that rules you out as an acceptable member of ArbCom. Tony (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've chosen to use my arbitration candidacy to, once again, badger me for daring to have disagreed with you, even though I hadn't said so much as one word on the matter in months until you questioned me about it here. I'll take the chance here to reinforce that my prior record as an arbitrator is publicly accessible, and I encourage any interested voters to take a look and judge for themselves. My voting record was particularly uncontroversial the first time around, so I suggest such concerns might well be unfounded. Rebecca (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. And the combative angle you've again taken reinforces what I've been saying. Tony (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from The Evil Spartan

What is your position concerning wheel warring and administrators? Jimbo Wales has often had a zero tolerance policy toward it. Do you plan to uphold this policy, and if so, can you explain your actions in four times reversing an admin action within the space of 4 days? The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with that stance, but I think there needs to remain some discretion in how it is applied. In the case you cite, an administrator who was intimately involved in a dispute with another user was repeatedly blocking said user. In such cases, I think an unblock or two with the effect of "hey, cool it - really" is more effective than leaving the block stand (likely losing a potentially useful contributor) and requiring the arbitration committee to step in, which would quite possibly have resulted in that admin unnecessarily losing his bit. However, as a general rule, wheel warring is a Bad Thing, and discussion over the next course of action is to be preferred. Rebecca (talk) 03:54, 10 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 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to answer most of your questions without the specific example you're referring to, I'm afraid. As I've said above, many elements of dispute resolution on Wikipedia really depend on the facts of a particular case, and it is often hard to establish generalities which can be applied to all cases. Rebecca (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I was rather hoping that the questions could be answered generically, but I can also see your point that specifics would help. So, be forewarned that this 'debate' has been (very actively) going on around 4-6 months and has generated around 4 MB of discussions, and has consumed 400 edits and reverts in that time. This has been a highly contentious and convoluted issue and emotions seem to be running over now. Another user has mentioned several times about taking this to ArbCom, hence my questions. It also appears that the same kinds of arguments are being made on another policy page as well, with the same set of core 'editors', but positions reveresed. The two policies are WP:NOR and WP:POL. I have no idea how long or convoluted the 'discussions' are at WP:POL, they were just brought to my attention today and I noticed many familar names using the opposite arguments they use on WP:NOR. Since it seems that eventually someone involved is going to ask for arbitration, it would be interesting to see what a potential arbitrator sees as the salient points. Thanks again, though I won't be expecting an answer to this can of worms for several days at least. :^)     wbfergus ^Talk 00:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing specifics. Intractable policy disputes, such as this one, are really difficult to resolve - and unfortunately, this one seems to be right in the grey area where it has neither succeeded or failed. As far back as I can remember, the arbitration committee has generally dealt with these sorts of cases by essentially saying "keep talking" - as otherwise, they'd be essentially deciding Wikipedia policy, which would be outside the committee's mandate. The committee has only tended to step in where one or more people are being essentially unreasonable, and I don't really want to delve too much into the specifics of that here, lest the case does, as you suggest might, wind up before the committee.

In terms of the broader policy questions you asked, 75% generally isn't enough for consensus, especially where there is strong opposition, and - as here - where it is a fundamental policy that is being discussed. Neither is it enough to declare the proposal defeated, so, in Wikipedia terms, you're at an impasse. As for the role of policies, I'd generally agree that that "policies are meant for enforcement or 'enforceable actions', while guidelines are meant to give guidance". As for your question about what exactly should be in policies - I suggest that there's probably no clear answer, and the direction taken in any particular case is probably going to depend on the circumstances of that case.

I'm not sure if I've answered your question sufficiently - have I covered everything you wanted to know? Rebecca (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt replies. They are more than sufficient, especially considering that after (or as) I posted my above clarification, one of the users did file an ArbCom request. So, in that light, please consider this finished. wbfergus ^Talk 10:52, 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) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this question. Would you be able to be a bit more specific? Rebecca (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I realise it's a general question... and that it's probably fiendish to ask it at this late date, but I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about the structure of the Wikiworld: users, admins, arbcom, stewards, bureaucrats, etc. regarding decision-making, accessibility, accountability, communication, etc. Is the status quo fine, does everyone have the access and efficacy that suits their reflective positions within WP or should things be restructured or reworked in some way(s) - particularly with regard to ArbCom. Do you think, for instance, that regular WP editors know enough about how ArbCom works, what it does, who its members are, and what it decides? [I should say that my general question - which is a question dealing with WP broadly - is one that I would like to pursue on a long-term basis (i.e. not confined to the ArbCom election period), but that I think is also relevant to this election specifically.] Pinkville (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)