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 15:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's telling that you choose the word "accused". I think that too often the tendency is for people filing a request to use it to criticise the behaviour of another editor without acknowledging their own role, or the roles of others, in a dispute. Like arbitration, a request for comment is typically free to range across a situation and consider the behaviour of any number of editors involved in a situation. Unfortunately, this is sometimes forgotten.

It is in anticipation of these types of requests that there is the requirement when making one that multiple users must have tried and failed to resolve the dispute, and be able to demonstrate this. Coupled with the guidelines around requests for comment, which say that the method should not be used for harassment and so forth, I view this requirement essentially as an obligation of good faith: a person making a request is asking for the community's view of a situation, and they are only entitled to do so if they have already made efforts in good faith to resolve the situation on their own.

I know that I have delisted requests in the past where the disputants have not demonstrated that they have made such efforts, and I think that generally speaking the community at large is on the ball when disputants attempt to "game" the requests process. This is, of course, dependent on a sufficient portion of the community taking the time to look into such disputes and offer their input.

So a short form answer to your question is that I have found requests for comment to be fair whenever there is a decent amount of participation from independent members of the community. --bainer (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of temperment do you think you have as a person? Forgive me if you don't understand the question.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 17:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think of myself as having a fairly easy-going temperament (being an Australian after all) but I think you'd be best served by chatting to some of the editors who've interacted with me in the past because they'd be better able to answer your question. My talk page archives might be a good place to start. --bainer (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How far do you believe it is acceptable to submit evidence privately to ArbCom? See for instance the Alkivar case, where there was a significant dispute over whether it was O.K. to keep evidence secret even though there were no privacy issues. User:Veesicle 17:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discretion to take private evidence, as a reservation to the objective of transparency, has been a part of the arbitration policy ever since it was first adopted. It's an important discretion, and should be exercised whenever necessary for the protection of privacy (whether that be the privacy of users, or of article subjects, or of the public), for the protection of the community, or the integrity of the project. The seriousness with which the Foundation and the community approach questions of privacy demands this.

That is, of course, not to say that the objective of transparency in arbitration is not important, far from it. I feel though that that objective is ultimately best served by making every effort to make the committee's reasoning transparent, even where the evidence remains private. If an editor with concerns about the reception of private evidence can read a decision and appreciate how the conclusions were reached, without having seen the particulars of the evidence from which those conclusions have been drawn, then the objective will have been met.

As for the Alkivar case, I can't comment on specifics; I'm peripherally aware that some evidence was submitted in private, though I'm not aware of any dispute about that evidence (I browsed the case pages while it was underway, but didn't follow all the discussions around it). --bainer (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What are your opinions on Jimbo's statement that he has a list of people to ban? Do you agree with the idea of Wikipedia becoming more intolerant of 'disruptive' behaviour (which frequently seems to mean, 'saying things I disagree with')? How do you feel this new stance fits in with the principles outlined in WP:AGF? User:Veesicle 17:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What are your opinions on the block of Miltopia? User:Veesicle 17:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal with these two questions together, if you don't mind, since they're quite closely related, and since I'm not really familiar with Miltopia, my comments on that block will be general ones anyway.

I'm presuming that you're referring to this comment by Jimbo, notifying of his block of Miltopia (that discussion is now available here):

"I think it is about time that we stop putting up with some really useless users who have done little more for months that simply troll and cause problems... There are others like [Miltopia] who need to go, but please let's not have this block set off a spree of bans of obnoxious irritants. Let's go slow."

I don't get the impression from this that "he has a list of people to ban", rather that it's time to consider sanctions for people engaging in similar types of behaviour (I believe "consistent low-level disruption" is how Durova described it).

I mentioned in my statement that many things have changed in the more than three years that I've been participating in the project. One of those is the general tone and manner of discussions around the place. Maybe it's a little false nostalgia, or a little Eternal September syndrome, but the environment around the project seems far less civil than it was back then. Certainly there were conflicts, but repetitively disruptive users were made unwelcome. As a new user I soon became aware of the policies on civility and on personal attacks, and these matters were taken seriously. Nowadays it seems that, at least in some quarters, behavioural standards are regarded as if they were not one of the project's five pillars, or that disruptive behaviour is tolerable from users who also make content contributions.

This latter stance was one put forward by a number of people in the discussion about the Miltopia block, and it is an opinion that I find particularly objectionable. How many useful edits does it take to excuse disruptive behaviour? Can personal attacks and incivility be somehow less damaging coming from someone who has written a couple of articles than from someone who hasn't? If certain behaviour disrupts the proper operation of the project, or impedes the work of others, then that is something that must be addressed. If anything, the community has a right to expect a higher standard of behaviour from editors who have been around for a while, not a lower standard.

I've said before that the assumption of good faith is a rebuttable presumption: we must assume that someone is acting in good faith, but only so long as there is no evidence to prove otherwise. If someone persistently engages in disruptive behaviour, then there is no reason we should keep putting our hands back in the fire, as it were. --bainer (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What are your opinions on the desysop of Zscout? User:Veesicle 17:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Those unfamiliar with this situation should see this page.)

Jimbo's suspension of Zscout's administrative privileges was a bold move, but ultimately it is one that I agree with, just as I equally agree with Jimbo's restoration of those privileges a few hours later, once they had discussed and resolved the matter.

Much of the debate about the suspension revolved around the definition of wheel warring. I think that, to a large degree, many people tend to approach wheel warring as if it is the administrative equivalent of the three-revert rule, when it is better defined as the administrative equivalent of edit warring. I think that, as a result, wheel warring is often defined in terms of acceptable and unacceptable numbers of reverts, when really the concern should really be with the state of mind driving an administrative action.

Zscout undid a block which was placed by a trusted member of the community, which had already gained the support of a number of respected administrators, and which, judging by his own comments on the issue, he did not really seem to appreciate the basis of or understand the reasons for. It doesn't seem that he attempted to contact Jimbo beforehand, and he didn't sound out the idea at the ongoing administrators' noticeboard discussion beforehand either. In this context I feel it was a reckless use of the administrative tools, and while the brief suspension was perhaps an unusual action to take, it really was nothing more than a proverbial thwack on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper in response to a brief lapse in what has been one administrator's otherwise excellent judgment. --bainer (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What are your opinions on the block of Kmweber? User:Veesicle 17:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're referring to Nick's recent block here. I didn't follow this matter closely, but looking back, I think that Andre's summary of the issue was very apt. I think Hiberniantears assessed the situation well in describing Kmweber's comments as "needlessly caustic, as they call into question the character of a nominee based on no prior interaction". --bainer (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you ever used alternate accounts? User:Veesicle 17:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. --bainer (talk) 16:59, 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?

Edit warring encompasses a spectrum of behaviour, and calls for a spectrum of responses. It can be extremely serious (given the nature of the project as a wiki) but it can also be only minorly disruptive. Thus, it is appropriate that there are a range of remedies that can be deployed: short blocks as specific deterrents for "first-time offenders"; revert or article parole for those who can work productively with greater supervision; mentorship or similar programs for rehabilitation of suitable editors; or ultimately banning for persistent recidivists. The remedy to be applied will depend on the nature and extent of the edit warring, and the likelihood of reforming the behaviour. --bainer (talk) 16:47, 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?

The same general approach that I mentioned in your first question applies equally here. Like edit warring, incivility covers a range of behaviour. However, the harm from incivility typically falls on one or more particular users, rather than on an article or on the project in the abstract, and is perhaps a more direct and immediate harm, and this should be taken into account when considering sanctions.

See also my answers to Veesicle above. --bainer (talk) 16:47, 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?

The community gives users the mop if it judges that they can be trusted to use it properly; the mop should be taken away from any user who is no longer deserving of that trust. Since the question is one of trust, what must be considered when evaluating administrative actions is the state of mind behind those actions: a mistake or an accident is obviously to be treated differently to a careless misuse of the mop, which in turn is to be treated differently from a reckless misuse, or an intentional misuse.

On the topic of weighting failings against useful actions, I don't think that's a productive pursuit. Given that our objective with all behavioural issues is not to punish users but to prevent further problematic behaviour, failings must be assessed objectively. Bear in mind that as a practical matter, a sysop who generally uses the mop well but has made a few mistakes has, when their failings are considered objectively, still only made a few mistakes. See also my answers to Veesicle's second and third questions above.

As for the last part of your question, I'll refer you once again to the general approach laid out in my answer to your first question :) --bainer (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Community bans are quite an amorphous concept, and personally I've never been to enamoured of them. While the theoretical definition of a community ban is essentially a long-term or indefinite block that no administrator proposes undoing, it is in reality a fiction, given that nowhere near every administrator reviews each and every such block; indeed, the most extensively discussed community bans will only have been considered by a couple of dozen administrators at best.

The committee should hear appeals of community bans liberally, given that such an appeal will typically be the user's only recourse (a consequence of community bans being bans, as opposed to blocks). Particularly, the committee should hear appeals wherever there are deficiencies in the discussions leading to or approving of the block, and wherever the circumstances leading to the block would benefit from a more intense investigation. --bainer (talk) 16:47, 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 think the problem with the allegations of apartheid case was that it lay so close to the border between a pure content dispute and a content dispute incorporating behavioural issues that it was very difficult for any behavioural issues there to be identified. This is evident not only in the workshop and proposed decision debates, but also in the arbitrators' initial opinions on taking the case at all. In a situation so heavily intertwined with content issues, I don't see what option there is other than to do everything possible to facilitate a community resolution of the content matters.

The stumbling-block in the THF-DavidShankBone is harder to pin down, but I think a contributing factor is that there is still disagreement in the community about what the appropriate response should be when an editor has an actual or potential conflict of interest. It's regularly the role of the committee to express what one might call "distilled" restatements of policy, to draw out the meaning where there is a lack of clarity, but there are limits to the committee's capacity to wade into areas where there is substantial disagreement. In such a situation, it may be best that the committee specifically remit the policy matter to the community for consideration, or simply adopt a more limited decision in acknowledgment of the limitations.

General strategies for dealing with a case in which the committee is at an impasse might include disaggregating a case, if it has become overly broad in scope, or passing a limited or interim decision (or making use of injunctions) where agreement can be reached on some matters but not on all. --bainer (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:27, 9 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?

   In the discussions on the English Wikipedia mailing list last month about the speed of arbitration proceedings, I suggested that we could learn from the principles of case management that have been implemented in many real-world judicial systems over the last fifteen or twenty years.

   Most of these systems involve the court (usually a trial judge) taking a firmer control over proceedings, setting timetables for certain things to happen, and making sure that the parties participate promptly. For our purposes, this might mean greater supervision of the workshop and evidence pages, having time goals for the submission of statements and of evidence, and sanctions for parties who obstruct or delay the arbitration. Obviously judicial processes are quite different from arbitration in some respects (for example, the disciplinary consequences in case management systems include dismissing the case or awarding costs, which are obviously inappropriate for our purposes), but I think that some of these ideas could be applied. --bainer (talk) 10:57, 14 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?

Thanks, east.718 at 21:43, 11/9/2007

1. As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the assignment of these permissions requires an exceptional degree of trust in the assignee, not only because of the sensitive nature of the functions themselves (accessing IP information and hiding revisions) but because the use of these tools can only be monitored by the other users with those same tools. Since these permissions were initially introduced into the software, the Foundation has developed a more coherent approach to their use (notably the access to nonpublic data policy and the privacy policy), and of course those are now the driving considerations.

As for the possibility of adding new applicants, I would defer to those already with the permissions, as they would understand what the workload is. --bainer (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 05:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both the neutral point of view and scientific point of view as methodologies are fairly similar up to a certain point; that point just happens to be so crucial as to make them utterly different. The problem is that proposals to implement SPOV here have typically involved excluding certain points of view, which is not compatible with NPOV.

As a practical matter however, the two systems will often coincide. The paragraph in the old SPOV proposal on "paradigms, alternatives and pseudoscience" contains a formula which is more or less a restatement of NPOV's "undue weight" component. Furthermore, NPOV not only permits but requires us to be as accurate in our presentation of different points of view as possible, and this includes describing who supports any given point of view and what support that point of view has in any relevant communities; if a point of view is the consensus of the scientific community then we say so.

All of these issues have been debated for as long as I have been here (eg. the pseudoscience debates which were big in 2005, the "truth" debate around the attribution page), and this is a good thing. I don't want to say any more, though you could look to some of my earlier thoughts on this subject (eg. this or this) if you're really interested :) --bainer (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committee? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? I (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my answer to east718's question above on the topic of the speed of arbitration and what can be done about that. In terms of the remainder of the arbitration process, I think there a number of areas where there is room for improvement.

The introduction of workshop pages was an excellent idea, and I feel that they have contributed some good things to many cases, however they do have their problems. I can recall cases where proposed principles, findings of fact and remedies have appeared on the workshop page before any evidence has been presented, and frequently workshops become cluttered with proposals that are unproductive, and even occasionally disruptive. I think that arbitrators should exercise greater control over the workshop page, perhaps by requiring that all proposed findings of fact and remedies should refer explicitly to evidence, perhaps by archiving unproductive proposals to keep the main workshop page focused.

The evidence-gathering phase of arbitration also has its problems. Evidence pages regularly become unmaintainable under a great weight of irrelevant material: while a strict limit on the amount of evidence any user can present is not useful, parties should be impelled to keep their evidence as closely tied to the central issues in the dispute as possible. Closer supervision over evidence-gathering should also help with the problem of parties spending too much time drawing conclusions rather than identifying evidence upon which conclusions can be based.

These are matters to do with the public process of arbitration; in terms of the internal process, all I can do is commit to being as active as possible. --bainer (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:

The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear 16:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a law student, that's a very interesting question, but real legal issues are a matter for Mr Godwin, the Foundation's General Counsel and Legal Coordinator. Legal threats are a potential issue for arbitration only to the extent that they are behavioural issues. --bainer (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. If Jimbo granted you the power to add, delete, or modify exactly one WP policy or practice, what would you choose? Why?

   There are a number of small things I can think of, none of which are particularly urgent, but if I had to choose one thing, it would probably be to alter the non-free content policy to conform more directly to the Foundation's licensing policy resolution, that is, to only allow non-free media in those key situations identified in the resolution. That really has little to do with arbitration though. --bainer (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. To what degree should ArbCom look at and treat administrators differently from non-administrators?

   The proper distinction is not between administrators and non-administrators, but between newcomers and experienced users (a group which will include, but is not limited to, administrators). The community is entitled to expect a higher standard of conduct from experienced users, who are, or ought to be, familiar with the project's policies and with the type of behaviour that the community regards as appropriate.

   See also my answer to Veesicle's second and third questions above. --bainer (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Disputes over nationalist conflicts involving multiple editors seem to find their way to ArbCom fairly regularly. Do these topics, articles, or editors need to be treated differently in some way by ArbCom?

   Considering that the Committee lacks a mandate to resolve content disputes (as it should be) I don't think there's any justifiable basis for approaching some content disputes differently to others. That said, in recent times the Committee has increasingly looked to apply article-based solutions in content disputes (revert paroles, article paroles, topic bans, and so forth) and taking this approach further would be a good way to deal with these kinds of disputes. --bainer (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. 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?

   Not that I can think of off-hand. I can sometimes be slow to reach an opinion on any given matter, but perhaps a positive consequence of that is that I consider different points of view before settling on a position. --bainer (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. 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?

   I can only speak of my own experience, and say that I've found being involved with creating – and more importantly editing – content has taught me alot about how to get things done, not just in terms of being familiar with policies but in terms of developing practical compromises to deal with various situations.

   On the question of my editing, I'll leave it to you to make up your own mind. --bainer (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. You will, I assume, finish your degree during the next 3 years. Are you in a position to commit that far ahead? Jd2718 18:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   2008 will be the fifth and final year of my current course. After that I don't know whether or not I'll continue study or find full-time work, but I can say that I have managed to find time to participate in the project to at least some degree almost constantly over the last three years, and I don't anticipate that that will change. --bainer (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Aside from the obviously acceptable types of alternate accounts (bots and doppelgangers), I'm generally skeptical about the utility of approving certain uses of multiple accounts. I do think that the recent reforms to the sock puppetry policy are moving it in the right direction, although the broadness of the "segregation and security" exception remains worrying. The problem that it has is that the average or typical use of multiple accounts that their owners seek to justify under this exception is not the respected professor or public figure using an alternate account to edit articles about Pokemon or something, but someone using an alternate account to edit provocatively in controversial areas while dodging the repercussions: basically, to facilitate someone being heated in a heated debate (I concede that this could be so simply because these are the cases one hears about).

   That proposal that you mention could go some way towards alleviating this problem, but I think it has a few weaknesses. The first is that, even though it's about approval and not registration, it will still encourage the use of alternate accounts since it makes them seem more acceptable. The second is that should the owner of an approved alternate account later be in breach of any part of the sock puppetry policy, whoever gave the approval will be put in an extremely awkward position, particularly since they will be the very same people who will have to decide whether to expose that the account is an alternate. --bainer (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Have you ever used alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia?

   No. --bainer (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wish you best of luck with your nomination ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?
2. If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?

   I'll answer these two together, if that's ok. I think that arbitrators ought to be as active as reasonably possible. That should at least mean reading and being familiar with any case in which they are not recused, though ideally participating in the workshop and elsewhere should also be done. --bainer (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   See my answer to Veesicle's second and third questions and jd2718's second question above. If anything, the community is entitled to expect higher standards of behaviour from users who have been around for a while and are familiar with our policies. --bainer (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Again, see those above answers, and also my answers to Heimstern's first two questions above. As I said in response to Heimstern, both edit warring and incivility are terms which define a range of different behaviours, and so a range of responses are necessary. The three-revert rule is a subset of the general prohibition on edit warring; a bright-line rule to cover the most obvious of cases. I think it would be useful for there to be a similarly direct and plain approach to many similarly obvious varieties of incivility. --bainer (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer.

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?

   The often heated and controversial nature of the arbitration process is the reason that the terms are three years long. It's the same reason that judicial officials in the real world are appointed for lengthy or indefinite terms: to allow them to perform their duties without fear or favour. Should there ever be a problem with an arbitrator's performance, I would think that would be best resolved between the Committee and Jimbo. --bainer (talk) 08:51, 26 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?

   There's some merit in such a suggestion, on the basis that truly inactive accounts with such software rights present something of a security risk, but really that needs to be balanced against the value that even relatively-inactive but experienced users present to newer users with those permissions, and the fact that this is, after all, a volunteer project. --bainer (talk) 08:51, 26 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?

   The Committee certainly have a role in seeking to bring clarity to policy situations where, despite difficulties of expression, there are things that the community agrees on. In my answers to Ral's Signpost questions, I mentioned the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration as a case in which I believe the Committee did a good job in 'riding the wave' of policy development, as it were, and distilling a complicated raft of competing proposals into a few clear and concise principles that the community was able to take forward.

   Of course, that role is limited by the extent to which there is actually agreement to be found. I do not agree with the idea that, as has often been suggested, the Committee ought to make binding decisions on what is the consensus in various policy discussions. The Committee can help to identify an unclear consensus, but it can't make one on its own. --bainer (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had the opportunity to travel to Melbourne about six months ago for a few days and really enjoyed it. Anyway, I notice from looking at your userpage that you've contributed a lot of superlative content to the project, including several Featured and Good Articles. As an arbitrator, would you anticipate that the time-demands of working on arbitration cases might affect your content editing efforts? Cla68 03:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article writing has always been my favourite activity here. I would think that, if anything, I would be even more motivated to work on articles, as a form of relaxation in contrast to the more intense work of arbitration :) I took an excellent subject on the history of apartheid this semester; that's an area where our coverage needs plenty of work, and I'm already looking forward to working on that. --bainer (talk) 11:08, 14 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) 01:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know there was such a list until it was discussed a couple of days ago. --bainer (talk) 05:50, 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 13:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say "a level head", but seeing as you have restricted me to one word, I'll dig out my Roget's and say "sagacity" instead. Call me Colonel Blimp, but I've always quite liked Kipling's sententious stuff. --bainer (talk) 14:52, 26 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) 14:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience many of the most successful arbitrations have been ones in which the Committee took a hands-on approach from the outset and made sure that the process didn't stagnate. Obviously I would aim to achieve this as widely as possible; I've discussed some possible methods for doing so already in my answer to east718 and answer to User:I above.

On the matter of proposals not being used, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Consider this workshop for example: more than one hundred suggested principles, around seventy suggested findings of fact and something like sixty proposed remedies. Now, many of these were variations on a theme, but many of them were also irrelevant or even unhelpful. Keeping a case's workshop page well-maintained (by more aggressively archiving unneeded suggestions, for example) is likely to help ensure that the proceedings remain focussed, and ultimately, that the substantive issues are identified and addressed. --bainer (talk) 14:19, 26 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 18:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mustn't forget the full formulation of the neutral point of view: articles are to represent all significant points of view on a subject, in proportion to their significance. I'm an Australian, and not particularly qualified to comment on American society, but if by "dichotomized public debate" you mean things like the teaching of creationism and other things in science classes alongside the theory of evolution, then I can say only this: our objective must be to fully and neutrally present the state of play.

If A says X, then we say that. If B says Y, then we say that. If A is supported by C, D and E, then we say that. If B is only supported by F, then we say that too. If A's work on X has been published in a dozen reputable journals, then we say that. If B's work has only been self-published, then - take a wild guess - we say that too.

Guaranteeing that "everyone gets their say", or that two sides are represented everywhere, would be wrong. But it would be equally wrong to shut out points of view because they don't represent "just the facts". Give our readers some credit: present them with the state of play, and all the information they need to come to the truth on their own. --bainer (talk) 16:55, 2 December 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 12:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the articles that I have contributed to are mentioned here. In terms of recent ones, I was quite pleased with Swan by-election, 1918, although that was a few months ago now. --bainer (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but since you've asked some multiple part questions, I've split them up to make it easier to read the answers. The questions can be seen in their original form inside this box. --bainer (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

   PHenry described the roads business as "what our children's children will remember as one of the lamest edit wars ever", and that's probably a fair description. As for the arbitration and the naming conventions poll: well, it seemed to reasonably effectively resolve the situation, though I must say I found it far too lame to follow closely. In general terms, arbitration can potentially assist in resolving these kinds of disputes by forcing disputants to the negotiating table, and trying to make sure that they make good faith attempts to participate. --bainer (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?

   WikiProjects have always essentially been about organising editors with an interest in contributing to a particular topic or subject area. Their activities have changed over time; I joined the WikiProject Melbourne very early on (in fact, with my first edit) and found it an excellent resource for identifying gaps in coverage, articles to work on and editors working in similar areas to me. Nowadays, as coverage has increased, WikiProjects are focusing more to the quality side of the ledger, looking at things like article assessment and standardisation. This change is nothing to be worried about, it's simply a reflection of the overall trends in the project over time, from quantity towards quality and maintenance. WikiProjects remain, nevertheless, primarily about bringing together editors with a common interest in subject matter. --bainer (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Do you believe that WikiProjects own articles or can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?

   Nobody owns articles. To the degree that a WikiProject represents the corpus of editors with an interest in contributing to a particular subject area, then the consensus on any given decision in that area may simply be the consensus of its members, since only people with an interest in the subject area will participate in the discussion. So as long as a WikiProject is representative, it essentially will be able to develop and implement article standards relevant to its scope, simply by coinciding with those editors with an interest in that subject matter. The touchstone is whether the membership of the project actually does represent those editors. --bainer (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

   I have no desire to enter the roads debate; all I will say generally is to apply what I said in response to your previous question. If you're talking about anything being "imposed", the question is whether the standards under consideration have the support of a rough consensus across the community as a whole. --bainer (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Anything that solicits an opinion one way or the other. It has nothing to do with form and everything with substance, so the answer to the second part of your question is "it could" - it would depend on the actual content. --bainer (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. 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?

   I get the feeling this is linked to your earlier questions and I don't plan on passing judgment on any particular editor. In very general terms, the use of those sorts of tools to deal with good faith contributors should only ever be used as a last resort. Also bear in mind that where there is a fire, the objective is to put it out, not to fuel it further. --bainer (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 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) 02:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I updated the question to reflect that. --bainer (talk) 16:36, 2 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 don't think it's necessary, though I can understand where the proposal is coming from. The major problem with protecting all policies would be stifling positive, along with negative changes. If every minor alteration and improvement to a policy page had to go through a protracted discussion period on a talk page, then we would never get anywhere. Gradual declines in policy pages are a downside of having them freely editable; the same can often be said for featured articles. From my point of view though, the remedy for that should just be to get involved with the policy pages and fix them.

When I rewrote the three-revert rule page in January this year, it had become horribly bloated and crammed with exceptions that people had seen fit to introduce over time, so much so that really it was no longer an accurate reflection of what most people understood to be the policy. When I rewrote the blocking policy page in April, it had become overlong and disjointed, and we were missing descriptions of important common practices (for example, there was nothing on unblocking). For some reason, getting in there and just "fixing" a policy page seems to clear away the cobwebs of discussion and motivates people to get involved.

This is the very reason that we have "be bold" as a mantra. Basil King was on to something. --bainer (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The role is more one of interpreter than drafter. See my answers to Heimstern's fifth question and WJBscribe's third question above; let me know if you'd like me to say anything more. --bainer (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have contributed to policy proposals in the past, and to reworkings of existing policy also, and I don't see why I would not continue to do so. That would be purely in my capacity as an editor, of course. --bainer (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Blue Tie 13:25, 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 17:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure exactly what you mean here at first. If you mean that requiring user registration for certain things is preferable to having to investigate all participants for duplicate participation, then yes, I think that's quite an obvious statement of how we operate here. The principle that anyone may edit Wikipedia is about editing the encyclopaedia; for the most part, the way that the community supporting the project is run is for those with a stake in the community to decide. --bainer (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. And yes, you got the principle. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 21:09, 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?

Parts of this question overlap with your question about recusals below, and I have answered those parts below.

I suspect that some of the conflicts about the list might be resolved by disaggregating it; presently it seems to be performing the functions of three lists:

• a list to facilitate deliberations between the arbitrators on current cases;
• a list for discussing other non-case functions (eg, appointment of CheckUsers); and
• a venue for accessing the institutional memory of former arbitrators.

Having three separate lists would be more difficult from a logistical perspective, but it would enable the list membership to be more relevantly controlled. For example, experienced current or former CheckUsers could be present on the second list, to give advice in that area, without having to be present on the other two lists.

I should note that of all the current subscribers of the mailing list, only two served as appointed members without having being elected at some other time, Nohat and The Epopt, both of whom I would contend are in excellent standing. --bainer (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Your question deals with a number of issues here, relating to a number of different stages in the arbitration process.

In terms of the discretion to take private evidence, see my answer to Veesicle's first question above.

In terms of initiating a case or adding new complaints to an existing case via private correspondence, this may be acceptable in appropriate circumstances (a canonical and uncontroversial example would be a banned user submitting a ban appeal by email), though the principle that someone should be given the opportunity to respond to complaints against them should undoubtedly apply.

I should note that a distinction ought to be drawn between parties or other people privately contacting the Committee as a whole, and privately contacting individual arbitrators only. The latter is problematic for obvious reasons, and ought to be discouraged. --bainer (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Most legal definitions of conflict of interest extend to include both real and apparent conflicts of interest, that is, the appearance of propriety is almost always as important as actual propriety itself. This is connected to the principle that justice must not only be done but seen to be done, which is the driving principle behind our objective of transparency. Thus, recusals ought to be made wherever the user editing the article on the Clapham omnibus would perceive such a conflict of interest. I should add that I realise people have already opposed me because we "don't need more lawyers", but there are elements of legal thought which are undoubtedly relevant to our arbitration process and this is one of them.

Where a recusal is made, it should mean a complete withdrawal from all the activities of an arbitrator, and this should include withdrawal from the mailing list. I can foresee practical problems in achieving this, given that an arbitrator recused on one case is almost certain to be active on a number of others at the same time, but efforts should be made nonetheless. Incidentally, this is another reason why the suggestions, made in the last day or so on wikien-l, that the arbitration mailing list not be archived are good suggestions. --bainer (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

You seem to be implying that the community at large actually controlled the practice and procedure of the Committee at some previous point, though really the Committee has always set its own conventions of practice, within the broad framework that the arbitration policy sets out. This was the model that was originally approved in mid-2004 by the community; I suspect that if the community really wanted to, it could withdraw that approval.

The arbitration policy does provide a few ways for the community to exercise influence over the Committee; for example, while the policy sets out the procedure for accepting a case, it also provides that, irrespective of their own decision, the Committee must hear or not hear cases where there is a community consensus. However, as far as I am aware, this has never been exercised. The policy also mentions that the expectations of the community must be considered when determining the principles that apply in a case, and to a degree workshop discussions perform this role, but again I think this is a power the community has which has been underutilised.

There should undoubtedly be input from the community on ways to improve the operations of the Committee, but I think that ultimately the best and most feasible way for the community to influence the practice and procedure of the Committee is by using their voice at election time. --bainer (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Irpen

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

Jimbo's decisions vs the community support

The final results of elections may or may not fully reflect the community support expressed by the vote tally but are subjected to Jimbo's approval, that is he makes the decision taking the community's opinion expressed during the election only "under advisement". Although it may seem a surprise to many, Jimbo is free to not follow the tallies and he may not necessarily appoint the top slice of the candidates according to their approval percentage. The historical precedents suggest that he may again appoint not strictly according to votes, that is skip the candidate with higher percentage of support in favor of the candidates with less approval rating but more to his liking (or if you want to be less cynical, the candidate on who community is making a "mistake that Jimbo would correct.")

If this happens again in this election and, hypothetically, you would be the candidate promoted over the head of another candidate who got the higher support, would you accept such promotion? Also, would you accept the election result in general if the candidates that are switched are both below your level of support that is such switch would not affect your own promotion? --Irpen 02:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to speculate about the results at this point. What I will say is what I have mentioned elsewhere, and that there have been some misconceptions out there about how candidates are appointed after the elections. While it is the case that the elections are advisory elections, in practice Jimbo has been faithful to the choices made in the election:

• following the December 2006 election, Jimbo appointed the top seven candidates (by percentage of support out of total votes) to the seven vacancies (and, I should note, the top five to the five three year terms vacant, #6 and #7 to the two year vacancies);
• following the January 2006 election, Jimbo appointed the top eight candidates (by percentage) to the eight vacancies, and in addition appointed three more candidates (#9, #12 and #15) to fill three new seats;
• following the December 2004 election, which used approval voting, Jimbo appointed the top seven candidates (by approval percentage) to the seven vacancies;
• following the July 2004 election, which also used approval voting, Jimbo appointed the top two candidates (by amount of approval) to the two vacancies.

So as you can see, Jimbo has always appointed the top n candidates to the n expected vacancies. The only time he has appointed anyone else was the three candidates filling the new seats in January 2006, all of whom were former arbitrators and all of whom gained 69.75% support or better. --bainer (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

ArbCom has the power to overrule any decision made by Jimbo in what he refers to as his "traditional capacity within Wikipedia".[2] Under what circumstances would you overturn a decision made by Jimbo? This isn't meant as a trick question - I would be perfectly happy with a simple answer like "I'd consider overruling a decision he made if I thought it was a bad one". But if you'd like to go into more depth or consider some past Jimbo decisions as examples then I'm fine with that too. Haukur 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a great deal of discussion about Jimbo's role on the project back in March of this year; I recorded some thoughts on that topic at the time in my blog, and I think they are relevant to your question. That statement in April was another step along the path of diminution of functional authority that I describe in that post. --bainer (talk) 15:32, 4 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 I can't remember the parties involved in similar cases that illustrate the point better. On occasion, I have seen what looks like an editing admin block someone unjustly, perhaps because of a dispute in editing an article that both of them are editing but that the blocked editor was not editing an extreme POV (so the admin is using sysop powers to to block and win an edit dispute). The blocked editor then probably feels the block is unjustified and creates a sock. Many times, people running for WP office will cite a clear cut case of someone with bad editing and bad behavior. However, what if there is good editing and improper block (which would point to admin misconduct about content), followed by sock creation justified because the block was improper (which would point to editor misconduct about behavior)? Does the first misconduct excuse the second? Or is the second one misconduct (socks) much more serious and punishable? (This is not an easy answer because excusing admin actions would tend to increase the workload of ArbCom because it allows admin to act on whim. However, excusing the second misconduct might seem to encourage socks). In the SevenofDiamonds case, there doesn't seem to be any ArbCom determination of the merits of his/her edits. If they were entirely reasonable, would you have advocated a lesser punishment or no punishment?

The above issue has some similarities with the Durova / !! case where some say that !! was doing no disruption. Please note that I am not asking your opinion about the Durova case because it involves a 2nd issue (e-mail). This may be another "content vs. behavior - what should be ArbCom's priority"

A follow up question is "What would you recommend if you were an ArbCom member and saw a situation where a school IP was blocked and productive editors were being blocked by an overzealous admin as being a sock of a vandal?" The school vandals and the productive students have the same IP. I saw that once where it seemed like several students were being indefinitely blocked on the excuse that they are a sock of a vandal. Other than behavior, it would be impossible for the students to prove they are not socks. Is then behavior-only a valid reason for near automatic unblock or must they go through a lengthy ArbCom process? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:51, 9 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 15:49, 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 21:44, 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) 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]