Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:32, 14 November 2006

Question from Ragesoss

In the Misplaced Pages context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?

I believe in the context of Misplaced Pages there is very little difference. If NPOV is reasonably applied to scientific articles, the mainstream scientific points of view should still receive majority weight. Like any article, this requires good research on the subject and with some highly technical articles may be more difficult for the layman to discern. This doesn't preclude having articles about minority points of view or subjects that are science-like but not accepted by the scientific community. In these cases, its simple to clearly state the view is not accepted by the majority of scientists (like Time Cube) or that there is no basis in science for the claims (like Homeopathy). The current arbitration case should help to clarify WP:NPOV in these types of situations. Shell 00:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from maclean

Do you have dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee, Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal, Misplaced Pages:Third opinion, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, or Misplaced Pages:Association of Members' Advocates? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you seek a position with the Mediation Committee? ·maclean 04:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never been an official mediator or advocate, though I frequently act in either capacity because of the work I choose to do on Misplaced Pages. I have helped out in some Cabal cases, answered a few 3Os and participated in article and user RfCs both answering and initiating. A good example of a little bit of everything was the work with the Shiloh Shepherd Dog article which spanned many months.

Honestly, I hadn't thought about the Mediation Committee considering the Cabal tends to get a bit more of the flow. However, if they're in need of assistance, I would definately consider that option. Shell 17:02, 11 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.

• I'm not sure how to answer this question. I have faith that our community understands the function of ArbCom and chooses the editors they believe understand the project and can represent the community's wishes when making decisions. We've come a long way towards handling the clear cases with community bans, probations or blocks and leaving the more convoluted cases for ArbCom to sort out.

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?

• I'd politely decline. While working for ArbCom means making decisions based on what we think the community wants, there's still others looking at the situation who can advise if I'm off base. While I would try to have the best interests of the project in mind, I'd not presume I'm infallible. In an alternate dimension, I'd like to fix the reliable sources guideline to more accurately reflect current use.

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?

• Yes, I understand what both are for and have requested both before. I don't think there's much of a backlog for either at the moment, but I'd have no difficulties assisting there as well.

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

• Integrity is the same as it is for me every day; specifically relating to the ArbCom it would involve being fair, honest and open; approaching each case with a clear head and the best interests of the project in mind.
• Accountability and transparency go hand in hand. Maintaining transparency unless privacy concerns are involved is one method of oversight that allows the community to hold the ArbCom and individual arbitrators accountable for their actions. Part of tranperancy is having the evidence and documentation behind a case available for review; another part is the current process - decisions list applicable community principles and findings based on the evidence and then remedies derived from those. Anyone can review a case, see the process behind the decision and work back to the original evidence.

5. Humour, a tradition of Wikipedian culture, has seen through several controversies in recent history. This is including but not limited to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, parody policies/essays, April Fools' Day, whole userpages, userboxes... Do you think that they are all just harmless fun, or that they are all nonsense that must go?

• Humor is a great part of being a community and also a great teaching tool. Silliness like WP:SPIDER, m:Assume bad faith or m:How to win an argument may calm a situation while gently imparting the idea that someone is behaving like a dick. Not everyone is going to find them funny during a heated debate, but we need as many tools in our dispute resolution arsenal as we can find.

• Vandalizing articles just to get in WP:BJAODN should be frowned upon - create it in your own userspace ;) Alternately, there's also some lists like List of jokes considered clichés that probably aren't necessary due to reference problems. Shell 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Badbilltucker

Thank you for volunteering to take on this task, and for putting yourself through having to answer these questions. For what it's worth, these particular questions are going to all the candidates.

1. I've noticed that a total of thriteen people have resigned from the committee, and that there is currently one vacancy open in one of the tranches. Having members of the committee resign sometime during their term could create problems somewhere down the road. What do you think are the odds that you yourself might consider resigning during the course of your term, and what if any circumstances can you envision that might cause you to resign? Also, do you think that possibly negative feelings from others arising as a result of a decision you made could ever be likely to be cause for your own resignation?

The only situations I can image that would lead me to resign would be a family emergency that would require my time for a long period or if the community lost faith in my ability to represent them when making decisions.

Given the types of issues that ArbCom deals with, I imagine its a mostly thankless job. Its likely that regardless of the outcome, some parties will be unhappy with your decision and may voice that disappointment in inappropriate ways. I deal with these types of situations by doing something other than Misplaced Pages - sometimes its a cup of tea, a phone call, a movie or even a bubble bath. I'm a fan of not feeding the trolls, using the delete key when appropriate and if I can't say anything nice, not saying anything at all. I've sometimes stopped in the middle of typing a response and simply closed the window - I can always come back when I feel like I have a clear head.

2. There may well arise cases where a dispute based on the inclusion of information whose accuracy is currently a point of seemingly reasonable controversy, possibly even bitter controversy, in that field of study. Should you encounter a case dealing with such information, and few if any of your colleagues on the committee were knowledgeable enough in the field for them to be people whose judgement in this matter could be completely relied upon, how do you think you would handle it?

I think that research is one of an arbitrator's responsibilities. I have the good fortune to live near a college and have spoken with teachers and students before to clarify my understanding of a dispute; I think we also have a wealth of resources just in Misplaced Pages's volunteer editors. Obviously arbitrator's can't be experts in every case, but they can amass enough information about cases in front of them to make reasonable decisions. I would trust other arbitrators to use due dilegence as well. Shell 19:27, 11 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 20:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the consensus of the community is still to give Oversight and Checkuser to as few trusted contributors as necessary. Based on that, I would imagine that looking at new applicants would only become a necessity if we start seeing a backlog for either use. With the new focus on the quality of the encylopedia, its possible that editors will be finding more out-of-the-way biographies with problems that could use oversight, however, there seem to be enough people with the permission to adequately handle it even if the frequency does increase. Checkuser requests have lately been completely in a very timely manner and I don't forsee any major increase in the number of requests there. Shell 12:39, 13 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?) :-)

I'd have to give you +120 points for sheer eeeeeeevilness. ;)

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?

   I think the community has been clear in the past about limiting the scope of the ArbCom (lest it turn into something similar to the American Congress *shudders*). Unless there's hanky-panky involved in determining the consensus for that proposal such as spamming or disruption, I don't believe, in its current scope, that the committee can assist in the case. If the disputants cannot reach a consensus, more of the community needs to be involved or the proposal should be scrapped; ArbCom shouldn't be put in the position to determine the communities will when precendent doesn't already exist. I think the idea of consensus as supermajority has crept into more frequent usage, when contributors ought to be reviewing consensus decision making to understand what is expected.

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?

   Unfortunately I believe ArbCom is frequently seen as the highest ruling body, absent intervention from the Foundation. I don't believe this was the original intent and I don't think a consensus exists to expand that scope. While ArbCom may determine to remove the admin bit, this should be done as a result of misconduct. Once this bit is removed, current consensus holds that the editor needs to return to RfA and allow the community to weigh in on reinstatement. In the Giano case, I think the ArbCom appropriately limited its remedies to the misconduct involved. Having seen some of the comments surrounding Carnildo's RfA, I believe that had he apologized in a manner that his detractors could accept, consensus discussion could have continued forward and likely led to his resysopping.

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?

   I'm not sure the ArbCom has mentioned service in their final decisions, but they have talked about mitigating circumstances and instead of probation or banning they've chosen to counsel, caution or warn contributors who have otherwise good histories. I think there is a vast difference between editors who frequently engage in problematic behavior and those who have the odd lapse of judgement. Many times there's a difference in how the two groups would accept sanctions - for instance, an editor with a good history who becomes involved in a dispute and makes some mistakes often realizes and admits to those mistakes; editors who engage in repeatative misconduct most likely feel the behavior isn't a problem. I believe fitting the sanction to the individual is more productive.

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

   Neither. Experienced contributors, regardless of where that experience lies, may be treated differently, either receiving a harsher sanction since they should know better or possibly a lighter sentence due to just having an odd incident in otherwise healthy contributions. There are many factors to consider when deciding the appropriate measures to curtail problematic behavior or editing; I don't think featured article editors vs. admins is one of the lines that can be drawn.

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.)

   One of the cases I saw that I thought missed the mark a bit was an older on involving Avala. While the ArbCom dealt with editing against consensus and a lack of sources I believe a sanction against reverting and probation from FAC would also have been appropriate. It appears that Avala had voluntarily stopped most of his editing by the time the case wound up which may have influenced the decision.

   Another example would be the Louis Epstein case. I think that allowing blocks for his use of non-standard punctuation was too harsh; given the discussion from Louis, I don't believe any method would have led him to stop his behavior and blocking would only acerbate the situation. A more creative solution eventually came about when Babajobu agreed to fix Louis's punctuation; it would have been nice for the article editors worried about Louis's punctuation to have stepped up and done this themselves instead of bringing this to ArbCom and I think the committee should have pushed back over what appears to be a minor disruption.

   Finally, in the case involving Zen-master, I would have strongly disagreed that his incivil and strong statements of his position were persistant personal attacks. I think his edits fell well below the usual level of attacking that results in a week long ban.

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?

   I think its Fred filling in a hole that currently exists as best he can. As you mentioned, the proposals may get rejected or refined by other Arbitrators but he does seem to do most of the legwork. I think he has a great deal of experience with the process and devotes a great deal of effort to ArbCom. I'd like to see some other Arbitrators step up and assist - while Fred's experience and willingness are highly commendable, a single person creating some much of the process can lead to staleness. If elected, I would like to assist in creating wording for decisions, not only to give Fred a bit of a breather, but to bring in some new perspective.

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 15:00, 13 November 2006

   I think experienced editors, regardless of bit status, can be valuable to the ArbCom. Problems like the viewing of deleted articles can be resolved via the mailing list or other work-arounds. While the community may not have had their say on trusting them with admin tools, they still have the opportunity to show their level of trust via the voting in this election. Whether or not the person didn't want the extra duties or wasn't ready for them is something the community will have to take into account when voting. I'm not sure that non-administrators specifically need representation; the ArbCom isn't a ruling or law-making body - regular editors can have their say in policy and precedent through our consensus process. Shell 17:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Sugaar

• When a resolution is made by either an administrator or the ArbCom, do you think that the resolution should be made clear enough as to leave no (or the leser possible) remain of doubt in the involved parties, quoting the corresponding paragraphs of wikipolicies that apply if relevant?
• When a user is disconform with an administrator resolution, do you think the administrator must facilitate that user's knowledge of the steps he/she can follow to appeal such resolution?
• When there are conflicting reslutions in a single case, do you think that archiving that case without a clear resolution is correct?
• If confronted between the civility and NPOV policies of Misplaced Pages, which do think it is most important?

--Sugaar 13:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)