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

I have taken some of the generic questions from other pages and answered them here. Feel free to add more.

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?

• I agree that mainspace contributions are the whole point of Wikipedia. While administrative work and discussions are necessary, by themselves they don't build the encyclopedia. Per Kate's tool, as of November 24 2007, I've made over 64,466 total edits, 34,043 of them to the mainspace. Nowadays I spend more of my time fixing problems than writing large amounts of new material. The last new article I wrote from scratch was Baruch Lanner.

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?

• A core principle of WP has always been to include all notable viewpoints. In some cases there are many viewpoints, in others just one or two. Regardless of the number we should present them using the neutral point of view. As a global encyclopedia, we should avoid shoehorning issues into the partisan perspectives of one country.

Several times over the past twelve months, ArbCom and the Administrators noticeboards have come face to face with the practice and consequences of "back channel communications" between users (communication by private means or non-Wikipedia means). Do you believe that administrators and users "need" to have private conversations? If they do not need them, do you think that media that cannot be transported over to Wikipedia (IRC, instant messageners) have a proper use? Do you think that media that should not be ported over to Wikipedia (e-mail) because of the expectation of privacy inherent in them have a proper use for non-Arbitration purposes?

• Backchannel communications are inevitable, can't be prevented, and serve some useful purposes. The question is how to deal with them on-Wiki. Discussions held off-Wiki should never be used to justify on-Wiki actions. Fights that erupt on IRC or over email between WP editors is not within the scope of the ArbCom's mission. On the other hand, some disputes on-Wiki might be solved most easily with a person-to-person email exchange or instant messaging session.

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.

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 warring is too common. It always has been and it probably always will be. It would be best if the community had better procedures fot implementing the milder remedies such as paroles or editing restrictions. Ironically, it's easier for an admin to block a user than to restrain him or her. With all remedies, the ArbCom should seek to rehabilitate problematic users. More severe remedies should be used for problems that have already been addressed unsuccessfully by the community, or when the behavior is especially egregious.

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 corrosive to the collegial atmosphere that should be a part of encyclopedia writing. It should not be tolerated as there is no excuse for it.

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?

• Repeated or gross misuse of admin tools is grounds for desysopping. Any admin who makes frequent use the block, deletion, or protection tools will make eventually make mistakes. If they correct their mistakes promptly then we should regard it as a minor error. If they make mistakes often, or are unrepentant, then they probably should not be admins. If temporary desysopping can bring an otherwise good admin back into conformity with community norms then that's a better than losing their participation.

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

• Appeals should be heard if there is evidence that wasn't considered, if it appears that an insufficient cross-section of the community was involved, or if there are other faults in the process.

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?

• A better process for internal deliberations may help the committee arrive at successful conclusions. In those cases where the committee cannot agree and has to end a case without a remedy the best recourse may be to compose a concise description of the disagreement and then invite the community to settle it. On the other issue, I don't think that cases should be dropped when participants announce they're leaving, or just disappear. Among other reasons, departed editors have a habit of returning.

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?

• It is difficult to make specific recommendations because the internal procedures, formal or informal, of the ArbCom haven't been described publicly. So this is my perception from the outside. I think that the committee does not work together to find a remedy. Instead, the arbitrators appear to handle each case as individuals. This means that some arbitrators have reviewed the evidence, analyzed the issues, and proposed remedies before others have even begun their participation. By that time some folks have entrenched their view of the matter and consensus is harder to achieve. I think that a more methodical approach would result in better and faster decisions. I propose that there should be a deadline for submitting evidence. After that deadline arbitrators should have a fixed time to review the evidence and discuss it between themselves, noting missing, redundant, misleading, or especially important evidence. After they've done that then they should move together to the next step of analyzing the issues, and come to agreement on those. The last step of proposing remedies shouldn't come until there's already consensus on the evidence and analysis. Arbitrators who can't keep up with the process should drop out of the case.

What do you think about self-admitted alternative accounts, see User:MOASPN, and User:Privatemusings as an example?

• While there are a few legitimate uses for socks, the norm for Wikipedia has always been "one editor, one account". The history of socks contains thousands of problems and perhaps only a handful of beneficial uses.

What do you think of Wikipedia Review?

• It isn't uncommon with communal Internet projects for banned users to gather in a separate forum to complain about their treatment and to criticize the project they were banned from. Constructive criticism is valuable but rare. The degree that WR users make personal attacks and obsess about WP users does appear unusual. Nonetheless, Wikipedia should stick to its mission and avoid being overly influenced or distracted by outside commentators.

What is your opinion on the use of multiple accounts in Wikipedia, as it relates to the recent discussions on the subject?

• A general problem on WP is dealing with problem users. We have policies that allow blocking and banning, but their effectiveness is limited by the ease of creating new accounts. If the norm is that socks may be used freely that makes dealing with banned users much harder. However there are legitimate reasons for using alternate accounts, not to mention the right of everyone to edut without logging in at all. The proposal mentioned may serve to allow legitimate use of socks while limiting their abuse. While it appears to that it would create more bureaucratic work, so much time is spent dealing with socks that a sensible plan like this may reduce the total time wasted on illegitimate uses.

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

• I am patient, analytical, diplomatic, level-headed (usually), consensus-seeking, pragmatic, and mature. I think these are personality qualities that will help in arbitration.

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

• I have served on many committees, and know how to keep business moving towards a decision. In addition to generic committees, I've performed jury duty and have served on a safety committee responsible for investigating and remedying accidents and incidents. I have extensive experience with volunteer organizations, and am familiar with the sometimes conflicting jobs of encouraging participation and dealing with less helpful volunteers.

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

• Until we devise a way of splitting cases among smaller groups, every arbitrator should participate in every case unless recused or absent.

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

• As currently used, the workshop pages are the primary means for the community at large to propose findings and otherwise participate. The talk pages are another, less formal, means. I think that Arbitrators should read the material posted on those pages as they consider their decision. I don't think that getting into arguments with the parties to arbitration is helpful.

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?

• Obviously, we always need to look at the entire context of an editor's involvement before deciding on remedies. If a new editor makes only ten edits, all of them apparent vandalism, he'll get blocked immediately. If ten similar edits are made among a thousand helpful ones, we're more likely to ask the editor why he's making those odd edits. On the other hand, we also tend to be a bit lenient towards newcomers and will assume that bad edits may be due to mistakes rather than intentional errors. Experienced editors are assumed to know the norms of behavior and have less excuse for violating them. My view is that core policies, including WP:NPA and WP:CIV, should be enforced stringently.

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

• 3RR is unusual in that it is clearly defined and easily identified. WP:CIV does not lend itself to such clear determinations. Having clearly-written policies helps everyone keep within the boundaries. Setting a good example matters. ArbCom members should set a personal example to other editors, and as a committee should set an enforcement example for admins.

Conflicts of interest "edits are strongly discouraged", though editors are "not barred from participating in articles". Is this saying that a potential COI is no problem, it's only actual edits which may be a problem?

• A conflict of interest arises when someone comes to Wikipedia and puts other interests ahead of writing a neutral encyclopedia. Such conflicts are most likely when we write about ourselves or our friends, associates, business, schools, hometowns, religions, philosophies, or even about entertainers of which we're fans. That's a long list but the principle is the same: while we may have strong views on a topic we need to stay neutral when we're editing. Folks without any apparent COI might not be able to edit neutrally while those with a seemingly strong COI may edit without exhibiting their bias. It's the content that matters.

Does every published author/expert in their field, have a potential conflict of interest in their field?

• Certainly, but as I wrote above potential COIs aren't a problem, just real COIs that keep editors from writing neutrally.

Since Admins and Arbitrators have extra powers and responsibility, do you think their actions should always be (a) accountable (b) transparent (c) follow due process.

• All users of WP should be accountable for their actions. Actions should be transparent, but deliberations about personnel should be confidential. That is a long-standing principle in committees. Process is important, partly because there are usually good reasons for the process and because skipping steps can give the appearance of unfairness. However at the end of the day it is the result that matters most. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to follow procedures. Sometimes WP:IAR is the most important rule in the book.

In your opinion, what is the best way to deal with revert-warriors brought before ArbCom?

• Folks who routinely ignore consensus , or who don't seek it by discussing edits on the article talk pages, are not following WP norms. Most of these cases end up being handled by admins through the 3RR process.

What is your opinion about revert parole (1RR limitations, etc.)?

• I've seen it work in several cases. When there is an editor who is making good contributions but is disruptively reverting it is preferable to outright banning. Of course if they still don't get the message they may have to be banned.

What is your opinion about civility parole (also known as personal attack parole)?

• Paroles are one of the more effective remedies we have. The trouble with our civility/personal attack policies is that they are somewhat subjective. If an editor can be reformed by keeping them on a "short leash" for a while then that's a positive outcome.

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?

• "Consensus-seeking". OK, that's a two-word phrase. An arbitrator serving on a committee has to get the agreement of the other arbitrators to get anything accomplished. Dogmatic stances which don't take other views into consideration don't result in arbitration cases being settled. Arbitrators need to tap into the consensus of the whole of WP by drawing on policies written by the community and by creating remedies that can be enforced by the community.

What are your opinions of secret evidence being given privately to ArbCom? To what extent is this acceptable?

• Evidence that would compromise the privacy of individual should be sent directly to the ArbCom. Otherwise there's no need for secret evidence.

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?

• The RfC/U process is deeply flawed. It was recently nominated for deletion and even those who opposed deletion didn't fully support its current form. I believe that some form of dispute resolution involving community input in user problems is necessary. The ArbCom cannot handle all disputes, the mediation procedures are only for content disputes, and AN/I is best suited to the cases that are most easily handled. I hope the community can rework the RfC/U process into one that actually resolves disputes rather than inflames them.

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?

• This is a serious issue for the ArbCom. Many of the procedures were established years ago and may need overhauling. I think that flexible deadlines for various stages of arbitration should be used to set the expectations for progress. Internally, there need to be procedures for reviewing the evidence, analyzing the issues, and proposing remedies. Currently, if I understand it correctly, these are done individually with no committee-wide involvement or methodical process. Every ArbCom member should commit to making ArbCom business their first priority on Wikipedia. Members who are not devoting sufficient time to handling cases should reconsider their involvement.

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?

• ArbCom members are appointed to the ArbCom by Jimmy Wales following input from the community. If an ArbCom member needs to be removed it should follow the same mechanism: input from the community informing a decision by Wales.

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?

• Tools should be given to those who intend to use them. However there's no tradition of removing tools from those who don't. Tools should definitely be removed from those who abuse them. If a user has stopped participating in the project, and there's a concern about the account being compromised, then the tools can be removed pending the user's return.

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 general, policy writing should follow community norms. In cases where those writing the policies are having trouble finding the right text to record those practices then the ArbCom, which already interprets unwritten community norms, may help in framing the issue. New policy provisions are written occasionally to change the norms, but the ArbCom as a committee should not do so.

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

• Behavior is what matters, not status. Admins involved in disputes that aren't about the use of administrative tools should be treated just like any other editors, and like any other editor should be viewed individually. Writing, improving, and maintaining articles is the purpose of this project, assisted by a supporting infrastructure. There are many ways to contribute, and many ways to disrupt. The contributions should be promoted and disruption should be discouraged.

Views/experience: If you could by fiat change one WP rule, policy, guideline, or practice, what would you choose? Why? [1]

• A similar question was asked last year:

• Imagine. Say Jimbo grants you the authority to make, or abolish one policy with immediate and permanent effect, assuming no other limitations, no questions asked. What would that be?

• I responded then that the ArbCom isn't responsible for writing policy, but that I was concerned about the constant changes to policies. I'm more concerned about that now, and compare it to a thoroughfare with a randomly changing speed limit. Clear, stable policies help us all.
• The ArbCom should consider overhauling its internal procedures. See my comments on that proposal elsewhere on this page.

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

• The Internet, almost from the start, has drawn together groups with strong beliefs. Wikipedia ia a child of the Internet and shares its parent's genes. Unlike forums, emails lists, groups, IRC, etc., WP is an ostensibly permanent project. Because of that the "stakes" are higher. Many editors come here with personal biases, which is OK. What isn't OK is editing with a biased viewpoint. All of our edits should be consistent with the neutral point of view, no matter how strong our personal opinions may be.

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

• I keep an open mind and have changed my opinion in response to new evidence. For exampe, I've maintained a flexible approach to Primerica Financial Services
• I am prompt in correcting my errors and apologizing when appropriate.

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

• While we don't know why some committee members go dormant, I speculate that it is related to frustration with the process, frustration shared by RfAr participants. I've made proposals for reforming that process. Further, many candidates for the ArbCom may not realize the full scope of the job, and find themselves overwhelmed.

What do you think of this method of selecting arbitrators?

• It's sufficient.

Last time round you received one of the higher positive votes among those not chosen. Many of the opposes were weak opposes that cited either some 'list' or a strong POV that carried over into administrative tasks (your 2006 vote page). Will these be less of an issue this time? (in the interest of full disclosure, I supported you last time).

• It's hard to predict which issues will be important in an election procedure. Last year I wrote a poor candidate statement which several users cited specifically when voting to oppose. They were right, it was a lousy expression of my time on Wikipedia. But I don't think there was much concern with my performance on administrative tasks then, and there hasn't been any much concern expressed in the intervening year. I can recall only one significant occasion when a block that I placed was overturned by another admin, and that was by the arbitrator who'd requested it and changed his mind and it was a over a year and a half ago.[2]
• Naturally, if appointed to the ArbCom I'd recuse myself from those topics where I've engaged in active editing disputes.

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

• A good editor should know how to do research, compile citations, analyze the evidence, summarize reliable sources, and weigh the viewpoints proportionately. A good arbitrator should have all of those skills and more.
• My watchlist currently has over 9,000 entries, a list that's previously swelled to over 10,000 entries despite a few purges, all added because I'd edited those pages. (I finally turned off the auto-link preference. Whew.) (In the old days you could't edit a watchlist with more than 8k entries, except in tne quietest of times in the night.) I'd like to think I've helped every one of those with my editing. I can't think of a page that is the worse for my participation.
• The aim of this project is to write the world's encyclopedia. Writing and editing encyclopedia articles is the sole purpose of Wikipedia. All the rest is "off-stage" business.

Would the ArbCom be diminished if you were not elected? If yes, how? What do we lose if you are not elected? (not looking for a rehash of your statement, but what do you bring to the table that would be missing without you?) Thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the same good question you asked last year. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Will Beback#Question from jd2718
• What I said then still applies. This year, an extraordinarily fine set of people have nominated themselves to serve on the ArbCom. Several of them are more suitable for this job than I am, IMO, and I look forward to voting for them.
• I bring lots of WP experience, a sane mind, dedication, a mature viewpoint, and an analytic perspective.
• An ArbCom appointment involves many tasks, not just offering opinions on RfArs. I've shown my deep and true commitment to the project across over 60,000 edits and three solid years. This is a field where I can continue to benefit the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a question, just a chuckle that you caught me recycling questions from last year. Quite observant. Jd2718 (talk) 23:29, 27 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?

• The ArbCom does not work as efficiently or methodically as I think it could and should. It's not a matter of speed, as I don't think the ArbCom should seek hasty solutions. In my view, the arbitration procedures should put more emphasis on trying to meet internal intermediate deadlines. It should be more responsive, including the simple courtesy of acknowledging the receipt of emails. (Folks are often instructed to mail special evidence or questions to individual ArbCcom members for forwarding to the committee, but have sometimes commented that they even never heard back that the emails were received). I think the internal ArbCom procedures should seek more methodical processing of cases. (Right now it appears that some ArbCom members read the evidence, analyze the situation, and propose remedies before other members even take up the case. In some incstnaces they may feel rushed to catch up and may not be in a good position to question the basic analysis, leading to disputes over the rememedies that are harder to solve. If the ArbCom were to proceed through intermediate steps more methodically then I think that overlooked points would be less easier to spot and timely agreement on the ultimate remedies would be easier to accomplish.

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 05:36, November 25, 2007

• Mentoring is a remedy that hasn't worked. Perhaps mentorships fail because volunteers don't like the individual responsibility of watching over a problem editor. By contrast, paroles seem to have been reasonable effective, perhaps because the responsibility for enforcing them is spread across the community. I think that we need to keep our minds open to new forms of remedies, including finding ways of banning established users that will encourage them to respect their bans.

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You asked the same question last year. The answer I gave then still seems correct:

  The scientific POV attempts to find the best solution to a problem, while acknowledging the limitations of that solution. The neutral point of view tries to describe all notable solutions to a problem, even those that are not optimal from one aspect or another, without unnecessarily judging between them. Put another way, it isn't the task of Wikipedia to prove anything, as the scientific point of view might seek to do. As I often say to other editors, "Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view."

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) 01:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'll take a deeper look into these before responding.

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?

• WikiProjects are administrative conclaves that bring together editors with similar interests in order to improve WP articles. They are great things that have helped WP enormously, though there may be conflict if they try to exhibit ownership, or to enforce standards over the objections of involved editors.

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)

• No general guideline should be imposed on an article over the strenuous objection of local editors without due consideration. There are cases where the nominally superior project may involve only a few editors, while the contested articles has several times that number of engaged editors. A decision by a few in a project should not trump decisions by many in articles. That said, striving for uniformity is desireable in a reference work and the often broadly-scoped plans of projects to bring articles into conformity should be given deference unless there is an overriding reason to handle things differently.

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

• I've defined "canvassing" as directly asking for support on talk pages in a non-neutral fashion. I suppose that project newsletters and IRC are extensions of talk pages and should be included. Other communication media are as well. The ability of Wikipedia to deal with all forms of canvassing, meat puppeting, and other forms of support is limited. All that we can really limit are clear, on-Wiki canvassing efforts.

a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order? Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If we always assume good faith, it doesn't matter why someone makes bad edits. Making a mess for a good reason isn't any more helpful than doing so for a bad reason. What matters most to the ArbCom is the mess, though they should also consider the likelihood that a bad editor can be reformed. The ArbCom should seek to provide definitive resolutions for mature problems. By the time cases like this get to the ArbCom the outcomes are often clear.

There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing[3]. 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 support measures along these lines. I think we should implement the proposal and adjust as necessary. Allowing random users to edit articles is a foundational principle. But having our policies change from day to day isn't a part of that. I can't tell you how many times I've started to write, "the policy says..." only to check and see the policy had changed. I still advocate that policies be open to change and should reflect the current consensus, but I think we should edit our policies less frequently than we edit our articles. If appointed to the ArbCom one of the first things I'd do is re-read every current policy. Because they change so much I can't be sure that I know all of them already, and neither can any editor.

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

• No, the ArbCom should not make policy. It does need to interpret policy, both written and unwritten. Sometimes it has to describe a community norm or principle while handling a case, but that is different from making policy from scratch.

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

• If appointed to the ArbCom I expect that I'd continue to participate in editing or proposing policies as an editor.

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 17:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would vote to "Agree". "Sleuthing" is an unfortunate, imprecise, and unconstructive effort that should be kept to a minimum. Procedures which discourage the abuse of multiple accounts in either editing or meta-editing should be supported. It's better to prevent than to detect. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:45, 2 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?

• My perspective, like that of any outsider, is limited. Current ArbCom members have said they think the presence of former members is valuable. OTOH, we should avoid discussing confidential information on overly-large mailing lists. It may be possible to deal with both issues by splitting the list into two: one list devoted to general ArbCom business and another to discussing specific cases. The former could retain former members while the latter would only include active members.

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?

• Communication with the ArbCom has never been a strong point. Clerks can answer some questions that previously had to be asked of ArbCom members, but it is still difficult to contact the ArbCom. I think this is an area that can be improved by designating a person or email address to be used for sending evidence that needs to be kept confidential, or for other contact between the ArbCom and RfAr parties. Other than evidence that, if public, would violate an editor's privacy I can't see any other reason for secret evidence. Even that type of evidence should probably be shared, at least in summary or redacted form, with the other parties and even noted on the evidence page as having been received. ("User:X sent to the ArbCom materials establishing User:Y's identity.") I don't think that non-recused ArbCom members should privately discuss active cases with parties. If there is a special reason to communicate privately, the communication should be shared with the other ArbCom members who are actively involved in the case.

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?

• Arbitration is not a legal procedure. Its purpose is to settle disputes and minimize disruption. We should be careful about applying legal concepts to the ArbCom's activities. When it comes to editing articles, we don't require editors to be impartial. We only require that their edits are NPOV. Likewise, ArbCom members all have biases. What we require is that they be impartial while deciding on remedies. Despite having a million editors, Wikipedia is a small community and many cases have come to arbitration with parties who are well-known to every ArbCom member. For that and other reasons it is impractical to set a strict recusal rule. I propose two changes in procedure which to minimze potential problems. The first is creating an email list or lists devoted to active cases that only has active ArbCom members on it. The second is to allow the ArbCom itself to vote to recuse one of its members rather than leaving the decision solely to the individual members. I doubt it would ever be used, but it would provide a mechanism for cases where an ArbCom member refuses to acknowledge a conflict of interest that is apparent to others.

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?

• Most of WP:AP concerns procedures. A committee should be able to decide how it conducts business. The MedCom writes its own procedural rules too. When it comes to the larger issue of scope, that was largely determined by Jimbo Wales when he appointed the committee. The policy has an active talk page in which proposals have been made and discussed by members of the community as a whole. If there was a consensus on the talk page to change a provision of the policy then I think that it should be implemented. As a general principle, I favor making all policies more difficult to change. See #Question from Risker above.

This may not seem directly relevant, but trust me, it is: the Nielsen Hayden mess. If you had to do that over, what would you do differently? DS 01:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I certainly would. As I've acknowledged before, I overreacted to that situation. Following discussions including Nielsen Hayden and others I apologized to her and to the community for the disruption. I'm not perfect, but when I make mistakes I take responsibility for them and seek to correct the error.

Sorry if this seems personal but its been bothering me since it occured. You and half a dozen other fellow editors of DPeterson's from the paedophile pages were canvassed by him to help him on the Attachment therapy page on 13th May 2007. [4] Shortly thereafter an editor on Attachment therapy opposing DPeterson and his collection of now proven sockpuppets (at ArbCom) filed an RfC on him. You signed this [5] which claims that those opposing DPeterson on Attachment therapy were in a coalition with those who condone paedophilia. This despite the fact that none of the editors opposing DPeterson and his socks on Attachment therapy had ever been involved in editing the paedophile pages, which surely you knew, and neither had you been involved in editing Attachment therapy. Two of the editors so accused were child development specialists editing in their own names. You effectively ignored the huge amount of evidence showing edit warring by DPeterson and his socks, left this remark and walked off.

My question is, did you read the RfC before signing up to such an offensive remark in support of your co-editor DPeterson and do you think on reflection you might have conducted yourself differently and if so in what way? Fainites ^barley 00:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pardon the long answer. This is actually a fairly complicated question whose answer involves several topics.
• I stand by the opinion that I endorsed. On review I now regret that I didn't revisit the RfC/U because if I had I would have signed on to the other opinions that were added later describing other important aspects of the case. The case was taken up eventually by FT2, one of our best admins, who's done a fine job of handling it. Every case doesn't require full scrutiny by every admin.
• Wikipedia has real problems with sock puppets. While the simple view is that it doesn't matter who writes the material, the more complicated truth is that Wikipedia is a collaboration and the use of sock puppets to skew consensus and win editing battles has a harmful effect on the end product. However hunting down socks is difficult work and sometimes more disruptive than the socks themselves.
• Wikipedia also has a problem with single purpose accounts (SPAs) that are used to edit a narrow topic with a particular point of view. These accounts often bring long-standing disputes onto Wikipedia, turning it into a battleground. That is disruptive and can lead to violations of NPOV in articles.
• Dpeterson turned out to be a profligate and abusive sock puppeteer. He was involved in various topics, one of which was pedophilia. Pedophilia-related articles have long been battleground between many capable accounts pushing a fringe POV counterbalanced by only a few editors or admins seeking to maintain NPOV and balance. Dpeterson helped out by opposing the work of SPAs that were pushing a pro-pedophile POV and, coincidentally, were abusing sock puppets to do so. It's a truism of Wikipedia that editors can be helpful in one part of the project while being disruptive in another. I never condoned Dpeterson's behavior on other topics, or helped him, or endorsed his RfC/U opinion. Before that, when he asked for help on Attachment therapy I looked over the matter, saw tendentious editing on both sides, and decided to protect the article for one extended period.
• One of the finest admins this project has had was Katefan0. In addition to corralling me to work on pedophilia articles she tried to get me to help on a topic that required gang-mediation: Neuro-linguistic programming. After much persuassion I looked into it and helped a little. One of the reasons I didn't get more involved was that it seemed like a long-term battleground on an obscure topic with passionate participants, mostly SPAs, who had little interest in truly neutral articles. Even the patient Katefan0 eventually gave up.
• Reviewing your edit summary just now I see that you have devoted your time on Wikipedia in an unusually-focused manner. While I have made over 34,000 main space edits and the most to any one article has been 320 (.9%), you have made 2,300 mains space edits, over 1500 (65%) of them to just two articles, Neuro-linguistic programming and Attachment therapy. With the latter you made 718 out of 1177 total edits, plus over 230 talk page edits. Despite having now made 62% of all edits to it, you previously accused Dpeterson of owning the article. The group that Dpeterson thought was so important now seems to have been deleted entirely or greatly minimized. Perhaps that's proper. With the hundreds of edits you've made to the article since his banning are all significant viewpoints still represented fairly and with the neutral point of view? I hope so. Just because some viewpoints are repesented by obnoxious or banned editors doesn't mean we can violate NPOV by excluding their POV if it's relevant, significant, verifiable, etc.

More veiled unsubstantiated allegations? Fainites ^barley 13:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The specific opinion I endorsed in Dpeterson's RfC/U concerned the endorsement of your opinion by a groups of pro-pedopphile editors. They were happy to gang up on Dpeterson because he'd been helpful in opposing their fringe POV. That's mild but still harmful form of wiki-stalking. They had no significant involvement in Attachment therapy, which was the locus of the dispute being addressed, but they were jumping on the bandwagon against a common "enemy". Those same accounts were involved in sock puppetting, aggressive edit warring, and other behaviors just as bad as Dpeterson's. All have been banned since then. I didn't write the opinion, and I would have worded it more diplomatically, but I did, and do, endorse the concern. The word "coalition" implied more reciprocity than necessarily existed. Sometimes leaders accrue followers they don't really want. I assume that was the case here.
• Lastly, since this is a question to an ArbCom candidate, let me say that I endorse the decision of the committee in the Dpeterson arbitration. It was handled smoothly and proceeded to a necessary remedy. As an unonvolved participant in an RfC/U it was fine for me to pick a choose the cases I got involved in. However I think that ArbCom members should research all the cases they've chosen to arbitrate (even if they didn't vote to resolve it). While editors can overlook a typo so some other editor can fix it, and admins can leave a block or deletion for others to administer, the ArbCom is too small for active members to leave careful deliberation to another arbitrator. There are numerous ways of splitting up the workload to ensure that the committee's work proceeds efficiently and carefully. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 15:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that this is so late

Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they --Blue Tie (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]