Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:59, 12 November 2007

Question from Wanderer57

Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?

(Just to be clear. Some candidates wondered if my question was "aimed at them". I'm asking all candidates the same generic question; it is not aimed at anyone.)

Thanks, Wanderer57 15:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Optional Question from U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.

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)

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)

Questions from Veesicle

• 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)

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)

• What are your opinions on Jimbo's statement that he has a list of people to ban? Do you agree with the idea of Misplaced Pages 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)
• What are your opinions on the block of Miltopia? User:Veesicle 17:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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 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)

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

(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)

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

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)

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

No. --bainer (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern

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?

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

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

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

5. Two recent cases, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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?

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from east718

1. Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?
2. Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why?

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

Question from xaosflux

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 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss

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

Question from I

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

Question from Revolving Bugbear

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

The servers for English Misplaced Pages are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, whose laws does Misplaced Pages 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)

Questions from jd2718

1. If Jimbo granted you the power to add, delete, or modify exactly one WP policy or practice, what would you choose? Why?
2. To what degree should ArbCom look at and treat administrators differently from non-administrators?
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?
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?
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?
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)

Question from Jossi

1. What is your opinion on the use of multiple accounts in Misplaced Pages, as it relates to the recent discussions on the subject?
2. Have you ever used alternate accounts to edit Misplaced Pages?

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