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) 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't recall any specific instance that I felt strongly anyones rights had been abused. Most Arbitration has two sides and, so there is no one (singular) accused. Jeepday (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I did not follow either of those debate, so have no view to give. Jeepday (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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 a good way for like minded community members to join together and improve Wikipedia, I am a founding member of Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and an active partipant in more then one cleanup project. Part C - No one person or project owns or dictates Wikipedia standards, but often as in the case with the template redesign the community will come together and set standards through an effort that began as a project or idea of a small group of people. Jeepday (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)

• See above Jeepday (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't have a definition of canvassing, if it a definition was required for arbitration I would research the communities current expectations. Jeepday (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

• No entries in Wikipedia are permanent or perfect, they are all subject to change. During my work on Recent changes patrol I find leaving messages on a users talk page an effective tool for improving the editors awareness of Wikipedia Policy. Jeepday (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 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 13:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Research" Jeepday (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no opinion on past arbitration cases or processes. If appointed I will help all Wikipedians involved in disputes brought to the committee to find solutions that are within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Jeepday (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Creating Wikipedia policy is not in the scope of the committee, nor are there past decisions supporting Arbcom creation of policy. Policy on Wikipedia is set by Wikipedia:Consensus. Jeepday (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Any Wikipedia editor may propose policy this is generally done at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Being a member of the Arbcom does not impact (either way) the right of a Wikipedia editor to propose or contribute to policy as would any other editor. I should mention that I do have a history of involvement in Wikipedia policy proposal see Wikipedia:Requests for verification. Jeepday (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Blue Tie 13:18, 30 November 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 17:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Creating Wikipedia policy is not in the scope of the Arbitration Committee. Jeepday (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I poorly worded the question. Voting in ArbCom Elections already requires registration, so there would be no change of policy in that example. It is the principle that the focus should be on front end security rather than security by obscurity. The notion of security by obscurity brings about proposed principles like this, which may then develop into a complex guideline or a policy, that I was interested in. Anyway - thanks for your answer. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:49, 1 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?

• Creating Wikipedia policy is not in the scope of the Arbitration Committee. Jeepday (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All Wikipedia content is subject to the core content policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V and dependent on WP:SOURCES additionally WP:FRINGE touches on expectations for non-popular scientific points of view. Belief and popularity do not make fact nor do facts make belief, consider that the Geocentric model was once very popular and very much believed. Wikipedia does not support any specific point of view (scientific or otherwise) it summarizes what has been published. Two good quotes to edit by are "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". and "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases - what matters, is how we combine them to create a neutral article." Jeepday (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of ArbCom, would you place more emphasis on content or behavior? For example, in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds case, there is voluminous discussion on whether SevenofDiamonds is really NuclearUmpf, but no discussion on what got NuclearUmpf banned in the first place. If SevenofDiamonds=NuclearUmpf, then this is a behavioral problem but doesn't have to be a content problem. If SevenofDiamonds edit was reasonable (I have not researched it) would it make a difference?

The above may not be the best example but it's one that I recently saw because I can't remember the parties involved in similar cases. On occasion, I have seen an editing admin block someone because of a dispute in editing an article that both of them are editing and the block seemed questionable because there is no overt POV. The blocked editor then probably feels the block is unjustified and creates a sock. Many times, people running for WP office will cite a clear cut case of someone with bad editing and bad behavior. However, what if there is good editing and improper block (which would point to admin misconduct about content), followed by sock creation justified because the block was improper (which would point to editor misconduct about behavior)? Does the first crime excuse the second? Or is the second one crime much more serious and punishable? (This is not an easy question because excusing the first crime by the admin would tend to increase the workload of ArbCom because it allows admin to do a lot with less oversight. However, excusing the second crime might seem to encourage socks). Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long answer

• I did not follow that case and so my response is to your question in generally not to any specifics in case. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is clear that a separate account used to circumvent Wikipedia policies is forbidden. So if User;;1 has been blocked it is the person not the account that has been sanctioned, building and using a User;;2 account would appear to an attempt by an individual to circumvent a sanction against policy. So I can see where it would be important to validate any confusion about identity before preceding. There is policy and procedure to provide second chances to individuals who desire a second chance, this may or may not include a new User account. Additionally if sanctions have been given and a charge is brought to Arbcom of a violation of policy it should be well documented, who is actually violating policy accused, accuser or both. It takes at least two participants to get to Arbcom, any combination of whom may have differing levels of guilt or innocence.

• That being said, the first judgment of a person begins with what you can see. In a case where User;;2 is editing within normal expectations and there is no violation of policy by the individual who operates the account User;;2, then that behavior is self evident proof of the individuals compliance with policy.

• The third piece to this is that has been getting press at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost and else where lately, is over exuberant admins. We are all volunteers here and rule number one of interaction on Wikipedia is assume good faith sometimes in their desire to meet the expectations they see as their duty as admins some have been known to behave in a manor not consistent with the expectations of their position. This goes for all volunteers on Wikipedia and in life in general for all persons.

Short answer For the most part everyone tries their best to meet the goals they set for themselves. assume good faith says we should assume that the goals of all Wikipedians match the policy of Wikipedia unless clear evidence to the contrary is presented. An Arbcom member has a duty to explore ALL avenues of inquiry, assume innocence (of all parties) until proven, and do their best to support Wikipedia in the exercise of their official duties. Jeepday (talk) 03:14, 6 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 15:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I am guessing that your questions are related to a specific policy, of which I do not have all the details so my answers are addressed to the general considerations not to specifics of any particular policy.

Your opening paragraph seems to imply that in this discussion the position of Admin grants an editor some extra standing in policy discussion. This is not the case in fact per current policy an editors standing (for most things) as an Admin does not grant extra authority - "tools granted to administrators are technical and do not convey authority".

Your second and third bullet imply that editors actively involved in a discussion used their Admin tools to block or otherwise influence a process. This would appear to be counter to standing policy for admins "do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with"

If there is a dispute I can not see why a dispute tag would be counter indicated.

Your last few points drift into gray areas that are difficult to address generall, so I do not address them.

Last point I would mention, There is no voting in Wikipedia "Wikipedia is not a democracy; policy and guidelines are not ratified through a vote". In Wikipedia Consensus is sometimes hard to define clearly and if there is not clear consensus for change, then there is not clear consensus for change so we don't. In the statements above you mention that the core group of editors opposed to change have been involved in documenting Consensus of the policy over the years. As an uninvolved Wikipeidian I would venture to say that keeping the established policy where conditions described above are present would be most appropriate. I have been involved in similar conversations for months at Template talk:Unreferenced over placing an image on ((Unreferenced)). An image was placed and removed repeatedly for years, with "no image" being the standing consensus. a few weeks ago the standing consensus changed and the template now happily wears an icon.

Moral Even if it's The Most Important Thing Possible relax, because There is no deadline and Consensus can change if it's going to change it will, if not it won't.

Jeepday (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick and courteous reply. wbfergus ^Talk 10:42, 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) 22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Starting with my standard answer here that has anything to do with Arbcom and Policy setting; "Creating Wikipedia policy is not in the scope of the Arbitration Committee". "The Arbitration Committee is a group of users that exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes" as can be seen in the #Question from wbfergus creating policy causes dispute it does not solve them.

As an editor I have a long history of considering referenced (and accurate) articles the most important part of Wikipedia.

WOW → "How does the structure of Wikipedia encourage or inhibit access to decision-making and issues of power/control?" = Response → I think jury is still out on that one :)

"implications for the Arbitration Committee and its members?" Arbcom needs to stick to the basics "construct a consensus opinion made out of Principles (general statements about policy), Findings of Fact (findings specific to the case)" that lead to solutions the represent the current consensus of Wikipedia as much as humanly possible.

Jeepday (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply. Pinkville (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]