Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:09, 7 November 2006

Please ask your questions here. Thanks! Nandesuka 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Chacor

A question I ask of randomly-selected candidates (although it was originally planned for all to answer):

• What is your opinion of ex-admins who have not voluntarily given up their sysophood? Do you think they should be resysopped at AC's will, or do you think that they should go through another RfA? What are your thoughts on the current re-adminship process for involuntarily-desysopped admins? – Chacor 15:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer: As the number of admins makes clear, the bar in terms of getting admin privileges in the first place is fairly low. I don't view it as unnecessarily burdensome to ask ex-admins in the situation you describe to go through RfA again. It's clear that AC/the bureaucrats can resysop ex-admins at will, but I think such privilege should be exercised sparingly, along with an explanation to the community as to why the need for such action was compelling.

This is completely separate from the question of whether the RfA process as it exists is working well. Nandesuka 22:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Newyorkbrad

Welcome to the race. My standard questions. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1. What can be done to reduce the delays in the arbitration process?

2. Would you anticipate participating in the actual writing of decisions. If so, do you have writing experience relevant to this task?

Answer to question 1: More arbitrators, and smaller panels of arbitrators per case. Right now the number of arbitrators necessary to hear a case (as opposed to deciding to hear a case) is gated by the number of non-recused arbitrators available, which seems a bit awkward to me. Instead of that, simply say that each case requires (picking a number out of a hat) three arbitrators, and different panels could hear different cases. Along with this you'd certainly need a mechanism to decide that certain cases needed to be heard before the whole committee.

Answer to question 2: Yes, and yes. While the current "workshop" model has some attractions, sometimes I've seen workshop pages play out like a poker game, with opposing parties bidding successively more and more argumentative, punitive, or strident principles, findings of fact, and remedies. The presence of an arbitrator actively writing on these pages usually seems to quench — or at least subdue — such tempers quickly. From that perspective alone, having more actively writing arbitrators should improve the process considerably. I have written a number of pieces professionally, but typically don't refer to them on Misplaced Pages because I prefer to be judged based on the quality of my contributions on-wiki, rather than by my external works or credentials. I'll look through my contributions to Misplaced Pages over the past few years and try to find some diffs that give you some idea of my writing talents. Nandesuka 23:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Fys

1. I will be asking the same three questions to every candidate. 'Arbitration' is a process of dispute resolution. If the parties to an arbitration, after it has gone to the committee, manage to resolve the dispute or any part of it themselves, would you continue the case or that part of it? If so, why, and if not, why not? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
2. What role do you believe private discussions between the parties and members of the committee should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Probation. Under what circumstances should users who have not had any restrictions on their editing imposed, be removed from probation? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer to question 1: There's an old saying: "Once you let the worms out of the can, you need a bigger can to get them back in again." Generally speaking, accepting an Arbcom case should indicate an intractable issue that is likely to arise again. If I honestly believed that the parties had worked out a permanent solution, I might consider the issue closed. But if I expected the issue to arise again, I would continue that part of the case.

Answer to question 2: I assume here you are referring to private communications between parties and arbitrators. Generally speaking, such communications are not appropriate to accept as evidence. There are exceptions (intervention from Foundation Counsel, for example, or legal concerns), and when such exceptions occur the Committee has a responsibility to indicate that it is making its decision, in part, based on private evidence, without revealing what that evidence is. Such occurrences should be exceptional: we don't want a Star Chamber. I assume that you weren't asking about private conversations between sitting arbitrators on a case. I believe that those are appropriate.

Answer to question 3: Probation is an unusual remedy. Of the thousands of editors on Misplaced Pages, only a handful are under probation. Users are only placed on probation when there is a belief on the part of the Committee that their behavior will continue without it. As such, I believe that once probation is established, the burden of proof shifts to the party under probation to provide a compelling explanation for why they no longer need to be under it. Nandesuka 02:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718

1. Nandesuka, can you point us to a dispute in which you have benefited from mediation? (or which could have used mediation?) Have you been involved in an arbitration? Please comment.

2. Your statement explains why you think you would make a good arbitrator. What would the ArbCom be missing if you were not elected? Jd2718 19:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer to question 1: I was involved in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision, which I believe resulted — at least for a time — in clearing a number of logjam issues on that article. I've been involved in a few arbitation cases as a party, such asMisplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Alienus, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO, although I don't believe I was under risk of censure in either of those cases. I've been an interested bystander and/or participant on the workshop pages in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics, and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano.

Answer to question 2: I can't answer that without more knowledge of the other candidates than I actually have. As a pure guess, I suspect I'm more interested in writing decisions, as opposed to voting on them, than most people would be. Nandesuka 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) 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. (Question from — xaosflux 19:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo

1. Express in a short paragraph, using any particular issue/incident that you feel strongly about (or lack thereof) in the past, on why editors must understand the importance of the ArbCom elections and making wise, informed decisions when they vote.

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

3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive checkuser and oversight privileges. Have you read and understood foundation policies regulating these privileges, and able to help out fellow Wikipedians on avenues (e.g. WP:RFCU) in a timely manner should you be granted either or both of them?

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?

5. Are "honourable" long-standing contributions and having the role of being sysop mitigating factors when dealing with chronic cases of incivility and other forms of policy violations?

Answer to question 1: Misplaced Pages is not a social club. Yet, in order for Misplaced Pages to function effectively, editors need to have congenial and professional relationships with each other. Editors, admins, and arbitrators use various forms of communication to forge these relationships. It's been my experience that the medium one uses to communicate strongly influences the nature and character of that communication. I've noticed that some editors, including some senior admins, seem to prefer out-of-band communication to on-wiki communication as a matter of course. I think that this is, on the whole, damaging to Misplaced Pages. I don't think there's anything wrong with the occasional e-mail message or hopping on to chat to find someone, but I do think that when one's first recourse for discussing an issue is (say) talking about it on IRC rather than talking about it on a Misplaced Pages talk page, it's problematic. Not only because of the nature of the medium that I alluded to above, but because those extra-wiki forms of communication deprive other users of the ability to follow and participate meaningfully in the conversation. Of course there are times when one needs a private word with someone else on a matter that requires discretion, but I think it's important to our users that their arbitrators be people who, on quotidian matters, prefer on-wiki communication to off-wiki communication. I think that that attribute is one that is largely undiscussed by candidates.

Answer to question 2: I'd replace WP:RS with Misplaced Pages:Attribution, effective immediately.

Answer to question 3: Yes. Yes.

Answer to question 4: Integrity is making decisions based on the evidence presented before you, and not on personal prejudices. Integrity is also recognizing when you can't do this, and recusing as necessary. Accountability is providing the rationale for your decision in public, and being willing to explain it and stand by it. Transparency is making these decisions in the context of public evidence, and noting openly when non-public evidence has been a factor.

Answer to question 5: This goes back to my soliloquy about which hat you wear when you are working on Misplaced Pages. I don't believe now, and never have believed, that the role of sysop (or bureaucrat, or arbitrator) should require users to give you any special treatment in the normal course of editing. What may warrant special treatment is your history of editing and adminning at Misplaced Pages (in other words, the distinguishing point is what you have done, not who you are.) An editor's track record of showing great restraint and care in using his admin tools is a mitigating factor if they get in trouble for misusing their admin tools. Likewise, a long and productive editing career can mitigate a single episode of vandalism: anyone can have a bad day. However, your use of the word "chronic" narrows the question a little bit. Mitigation is not the same as indemnification. No one should feel that their editing or admin track record gives them a right to be constantly unpleasant and rude. So yes, it is one factor to consider, but is in no way dispositive. Nandesuka 03:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

From Scobell302

Having ran in last year's ArbCom election, have you learned anything from that election that you'll be applying to this election?

Answer: Not really. I was very comfortable with my statement from last year, and used part of it for my statement this year. The results from last year were about what I expected. What I tried to do last year was to express what I thought was the main problem Misplaced Pages would be facing this year (particularly with respect to transparency and legitimacy), and suggest that we need to be thinking proactively about it. I believe that events (and subsequent arbitration cases) have supported my position. So this year, I'm hoping that everyone running for office is thinking about transparency and legitimacy. As long as whomever is elected takes those issues seriously, I think they'll do a good job. Nandesuka 02:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from AnonEMouse

Warning: Most of these are intended to be tough. Answering them properly will be hard. I don't expect anyone to actually withdraw themselves from nomination rather than answer these, but I do expect at least some to seriously think about it!

The one consolation is that your competitors for the positions will be asked them too. Notice that there are about one thousand admins, and about a dozen arbcom members, so the process to become an arbcom member may be expected to be one hundred times harder. (Bonus question - do you think I hit that difficulty standard?) :-)

1. A current Arbcom case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?
2. Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?
3. Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Misplaced Pages. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Misplaced Pages. Do you agree or not, and why?
4. If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Misplaced Pages - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.
5. While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)
6. It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?
7. For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom?

AnonEMouse 17:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from User:Ideogram

During the discussion of the Giano case I tried to be civil and it was not my intent to "troll". However, you and others quickly labelled me a troll and you went so far as to revert my comments off the page. Why did you treat me with such disrespect and will you continue to treat me so in the future? How can someone who does not intend to troll be a troll? --Ideogram 07:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer: I believe the edit you're referring to is here, and I think it's a good edit, and stand by it. You were engaging in repetitive taunting that was intended primarily to provoke a reaction. That's as good a definition of trolling as any. In addition to my removal of your comments, various comments of yours were reverted by Jonathunder and Irpen. Your edits at this point of the case were described as "universally unproductive" by one individual, and I think this characterization was fair. Your edits at this point can be described as asking a large number of extremely open ended questions with a hectoring or "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" tone (see here, here, here, here for a few choice examples, but the history of the page is full of many, many more.)

 You deserve to be treated with respect.  Part of treating you with respect is allowing you to accept the consequences of your own decisions.  One decides whether someone is a troll based on their actions, not on their intent.  We can't know your mind; we can only examine your actions and decide accordingly.  Your actions, in this case, speak for themselves, and I invite anyone who is wondering about whether my characterization of your edits as "trolling" to examine the history for themselves.  I stand by my characterization of your edits in this particular case.  I'm sure you're a great guy, but if you aren't able to withstand this sort of criticism then don't act in a way deserving of it.  Kind Regards, Nandesuka 13:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)