If you've come here, thanks for looking this far. Please consider asking a few specific questions rather than a long list of copied questions, although I will answer them all. Stifle (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions from me.

1. Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Wikipedia in three years. Should there be a mechanism by which the Community can recall an arbitrator in whose judgment it loses confidence? Do you have any thoughts as to what form that mechanism should take?

   I think that a community-driven process would probably fail for the same reason that there has been so many perennial failed proposals for a community-driven de-adminship process - users who felt importuned or aggrieved by an arbitrator would be liable to take frivolous or vexatious issues against them. I think that an arbitrator in whom (or in whose judgment) the community had lost confidnece would probably be asked to resign by the rest of the Committee or by Jimbo. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Wikipedia. Would you advocate withdrawing the access in the case of someone someone who failed to make sufficient use of it? If yes, what sort of activity level would you say is required?

   Certainly not for oversight, as there's no guarantee that someone will actually have enough opportunity to use the tools. Probably not for checkuser either - as long as they aren't doing any harm I don't see a problem. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Where the Community finds itself unable to reach a consensus on the formulation of a given policy, do you think ArbCom has a role to play in determining that policy?

   In a word, no. The ArbCom has enough on its plate as things stand and I would not expect it to accomplish anything. Community-based policy design, even when it takes an inordinately-long time, is more likely to yield an agreed result. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:42, 12 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 should depend on the severity of their behaviour and ArbCom's assessment of their likelihood to reoffend. I would prefer to see users given every chance rather than being slapped with one-year bans. One proviso - because cases necessarily don't end up in ArbCom until someone's severely vexated, the likelihood is that the ability or wont of the complained-of user to reform may be limited. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A yardstick I would use is whether their behaviour has, or appears to have, caused another user to leave the project. At that stage I would be considering a ban. Before that, civility parole would be more suitable. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

It has concerned me lately that the standards for people to be granted adminship have gone up because of a perception that it is hard to remove adminship. If the actions of an administrator make it clear that they would be opposed in a new RFA, then I would consider desysopping to be among the remedies to consider. Temporary suspensions are a middle ground between censure and desysopping where an admin has shown questionable judgment and I would see them more as an incentive to improve when the flag is restored than a punishment. (This is referring to an actual decision to suspend a sysop rather than the restoration of the bit to someone who was desysopd in an emergency.) Stifle (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If there are admins who are willing to unblock the banned user, but there is dispute (at WP:AN or elsewhere) then the ArbCom should consider the appeal. (By corollary, if there is no dispute, they can be unbanned, and if there is no admin willing to unblock, then they remain banned.) Stifle (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

I'm not sure this would come up. If it did, I guess the ArbCom should remand the case to mediation or to the community. I suspect that if there was a clear-cut sanction required then this wouldn't arise. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:03, 13 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 think it's more the first one, but things have sped up lately. If selected, I will make sure to check up regularly on evidence and decisions in order that cases aren't pending for months. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   Well, there are always plenty of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies made by parties which are manifestly unreasonable. If by "voting subpages" you mean /Proposed decision, I haven't seen any lately. In the same way I haven't seen any arbitration cases to be failures as such, but if I notice one I will return here and post. Sorry if that's a poor answer. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, east.718 at 01:13, 11/13/2007

I read the short essay on your userpage about having "no featured articles." Have you heavily edited any article that was successfully nominated for Good Article? Cla68 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am aware of. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 13 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 13:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispassion.

Arbitrators wield one of the most powerful roles on Wikipedia. Therefore, they need to show the utmost in neutrality and disconnection from the cases in order that they can do the best for the job. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, many larger arbitrations seem to suffer from the fact that the arbitrators do not spend as much time on examining the evidence and statements as they should be spending. Examples of problems that arise would be proposals not being used or relevant issues not even being addressed. This is probably due to the large backlog and caseload. What would you do to ensure that all arbitrations are ended efficiently and fairly and that all issues and concerns are addressed and all needed remedies met? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not hugely active in article namespace, doing more in maintenance and deletion, so I would be ideally placed and not distracted from the caseload. Now, there are far fewer cases lately than there have been in the past, so perhaps things are improving.

I would also commit to not placing motions/findings/etc. directly on the Proposed Decision page, rather using the workshop first. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 17:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. WP:SPOV is historic and has one edit in the last 16 months, could you give more clarification to what is a scientific point of view? Stifle (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Good question. I'll prefix the answer by saying that American society (or indeed any other society) should not have an undue influence on Wikipedia, and that I am not an American citizen or resident. I'm also unsure as to how this is relevant to my candidacy for the ArbCom, but I'll answer notwithstanding.

I think that anything deviating from a neutral point of view is a retrograde step. A neutral point of view need not mean specifying every mainstream opinion on something and letting the reader decide. Wikipedia is one of the top ten sites the Internet and I don't hesitate in saying that this is where I look for lots of information, news, and developments. There's no harm in reporting neutrally on partisan opinions that people hold, but reporting them as unarguably true is not the way to go.

In short, if we can maintain NPOV, there is no reason for us not to include what other people think. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I think the process sometimes takes excruciatingly long and I would try to speed things up where possible. I would also try to make things more open and on-wiki. Stifle (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not great. They can often degenerate into random accusation parades. However they are good at showing an otherwise cooperative editor that their opinion is a minority and consensus is against them (when that is indeed the case). Stifle (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Yes, whenever possible (i.e. when not on leave of absence etc.)

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

   Not necessarily, as there are over 10 arbitrators active at any stage there may not be a need for "me too"s. I would, however, contribute to Arbcom-L.

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?

   Generally yes, although I wouldn't call it "more equal". I would say that experienced editors should be expected to have gained an understanding of what is and isn't acceptable.

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

   If you mean in general encyclopedic terms, then by warning from users and short blocks for personal attacks that are disruptive. In the case of ArbCom cases, then by civility parole. I don't think it's possible to equate it to 3RR as that is a bright-line issue.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle (talk) 14:46, 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 12:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my work is as a wikignome, cleaning up vandalism and doing new page patrol. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. A disproportionate share of ArbCom cases involve nationalist disputes. Do these disputes, or the editors, or the articles, do they need to be somehow viewed or treated differently by ArbCom?
2. Should ArbCom distinguish between admins and non-admins? Between article writers and those engaged in other tasks? How?

Jd2718 (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't think those disputed need different treatment, just strict treatment to ensure that they don't disrupt the Wikipedia's smooth operations.
2. Admins should be held to a somewhat higher standard because they we are more conversant with policies and process. This means that the same actions which might earn a non-admin a revert parole or censure may result in a temporary or permanent revocation of an sysop's bit. I don't think a distinction between article writers and those engaged in other tasks would accomplish anything. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

   They were a nightmare :) However, I don't think that given the animosity of all the users involved (and I'll stick my neck out and say that it was also given the triviality of the issue) that it could have been resolved any other way.

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?

   a) To help and coordinate collaboration on one or more topics.

   b) No, same as anyone else.

   c) Only in the view of a general consensus (i.e. not one that exists only or mainly within the Wikiproject.

3. Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on sibling WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)

   No, without a general consensus as above.

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

   a) I understand canvassing to be requesting the assistance of a selected group of users to gain support for one's position in a debate, discussion, vote, etc.

   b) It could include project newsletters, but IRC is off-wiki and I am loathe to try to exercise jurisdiction on off-wiki activities. Not saying that they are necessarily ultra vires the ArbCom, but they might be.

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?

   a) I don't think it's possible to make a mess that can't easily be fixed, but supposing it is, I think when it becomes a net detriment to the project (c.f. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli) it should be sanctioned.

   b) Yes, most ideally rollbacks to avoid assuming bad faith.

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

Stifle (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)

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

1. No problem. I would say only with the agreement of the other project. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I think that this is probably a good idea. The main thread of opposition is "admins can edit them anyway", which is true but if the pages were protected there would be far fewer edits so those edits made would stick out like a sore thumb. It's always good to come to a consensus in talk before hacking around with policies. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

   I don't think it can or should create policy. I think that it can (as in it is capable of) developing policy for community consensus, but should not do so unless community efforts to resolve an issue have clearly failed.

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

   No more than I do as an editor at the moment.

--Blue Tie 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hugely familiar with those computer science terms you linked to. Do you think you could ask this another way? Stifle (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question has caused others a problem as well. It can be read in several ways. I apologise for the difficulty. As some have picked up, the question was prompted by, among other things, (though is by no means intended to be directly related to) the recent Durova case, and the subsequent drafting of Wikipedia:Confidential evidence. I was interested to see candidates' thinking on the issue of protecting the project from the sort of abuse that requires investigation methods to disclose. Abuse such as the creation of sockpuppets in order to load tally votes in an ArbCom election or RfA. As there is the ability to afford upfront security by installing "security by design" methods (disclosure of real identity to register, for example), rather than "security by obscurity" methods (not letting users become aware of how to avoid sockpuppet detection by not talking about detective methods in public), I wondered where candidates sympathies lay - supporting undercover detective work, or supporting protecting Wikipedia by (for example) formal registration for certain (non-editing) activities. The question is not about changing existing policy, but about where you would put emphasis on the community devoting its attention. I hope this helps. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've withdrawn, the point is now moot, but I would prefer the security by obscurity for practical reasons. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 3 December 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?

Sorry, that's too much for me to answer now that I've withdrawn my candiacy. Hope you understand. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]