Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:10, 4 November 2006

Ask me anything!

(No. Not that. Please. Not that.)

1. Can you describe how you will deal with the feedback and inputs of the general community of editors on different cases? What kind of role will such outside opinions play in your work as an arbitrator? Rama's arrow 04:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Certainly feedback and inputs are an important and valuable aspect of the job, considering the role of the community in shaping the direction of the project. That said, the role of arbitrator is not to follow the numerical vote of the community, but to consider the will of the community against the needs of the project against the directions from higher up the totem pole, etc, etc, etc. The short form being "I will read them, think about them, and either change my mind or respectfully disagree." Phil Sandifer 04:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

2. You say on your user page that you are a professional academic. Please elaborate on the same. What do you feel is the role of "expert" Wikipedians in the development and maintenance of articles? -- Samir धर्म 04:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   I am a PhD student in English at the University of Florida, specializing in media theory. My academic webpage is here. The role of "expert" Wikipedians is simple - they're usually good at editing Misplaced Pages. Expertise, along with many other things (reasonableness, courtesy, dilligence) is something Wikipedians generally respect in discussions. This is a social fact, however, and ought not be backed up on any sort of policy or guideline level any more than we need a guideline called "Respect the authority of nice people." Phil Sandifer 05:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Phil Sandifer, could you please explain why you think it inevitable that the ArbCom will have to start looking at cases involving content? What do you think might be the broader implications of this for the Misplaced Pages Project? Dasondas 06:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Simply put, because we've gotten very god at shooting behavioral problems without arbitration involvement. Over the last 18 months or so, our blocking policies and social policies have gotten increasingly more streamlined and sane, leading to it being easy to deal with disruptive and malicious users on an administrative level. Meanwhile, issues like WP:LIVING, the push for quality over quantity, the importance of citations, and other things have ledto a lack of clarity on content issues just as the social issues clarify. Thus the thorny disputes, at present, are content disputes, not behavior disputes, and the arbcom will need to adjust accordingly - as it has been. Look at the number of broad disputes like "notability" and "pseudoscience" that it has found itself entering in the past few weeks. Phil Sandifer 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

4. 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 11:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   I think this is something that has to be handled case by case. I do think the RFA process has some serious flaws that make it problematic for sysopping in general, little yet for re-sysopping. And I think some of the older de-adminings on the part of the arbcom were based on a naive understanding of what RFA was even at the time, little yet of what it would become. Thus cases like Carnildo become vexed, difficult cases. In general, I would prefer that involuntary desysopping be reviewable by the arbcom as well as by the community, and that either be able to re-elevate a user. In the cases that predate the problems with RFA, I would generally consider appealing the decision to the arbcom to be a reasonable course of action. But that addresses the general case - specifics would depend on the behavior of the user both before and after the de-sysopping, the nature of the community support and opposition, etc. But as a general rule, I should think arbcom decisions should always be liftable by the arbcom as well as by the community. Phil Sandifer 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

5. 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”. 12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   It would depend on the case. In most cases, I should think not, as the arbcom ought not act when it is not needed. However I can envision cases where it would be more appropriate to continue the case - should the resolution to a dispute be unacceptable for some reason, or should the resolution be of sufficient importance that it ought be codified somewhat in the form of a decision, I would find a ruling to deal with those things appropriate. Phil Sandifer 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

6. What role do you believe private discussions between the parties should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   I'm unconvinced of the possibility of answering this as a general case, but here goes... in certain cases of extremely disruptive users, evidence from private discussion is essential to understanding the nature of the disruption. These cases are the exception, rather than the rule. I don't think such evidence should be a priori banned from consideration. I also don't think such evidence should usually be taken into much, if any, consideration. Phil Sandifer 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

7. 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”. 12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Once again - and I apologize for the somewhat intensely useless nature of my answers here - I don't think there's a general rule here. Such users should appeal to the arbcom, and the cases should be heard on their own merits. I'm certainly not running for arbcom in order to advance some policy agenda, or to rewrite the rules on re-adminning, or evidentiary procedure, or probation. I have no overall programmatic agenda on these issues. I'll look at the merits of a presented case, and I'll make the best judgment I can on those merits. Phil Sandifer 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

8. This is a standard question I'll be asking all candidates. What do you believe can be done to reduce delays in the arbitration process? Newyorkbrad 16:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Probably not a lot. Certainly we don't want to drag arbitrators even further from the act of editing pages. Certainly we don't want to preclude people with jobs and lives from being arbitrators - such things are rightly marks of a maturity that we want in the process. As always, there will be a rush of activity early on with the new committee, and then by February or so it will taper off, and by June will be its normaly sluggish self. Temporary injunctions may well be usable to take the edge off of the problems caused by this fact of arbitration, but ultimately, I think the best we can hope for is "not quite as bad as it used to be," which, generally speaking, we've been able to get every cycle. (You may not remember the horrors of early arbitration. Cases routinely took 3-6 months. It was unbearable.) Phil Sandifer 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

9. (This is to improve my knowledge as much as to know yours) What do you think about the problem of several admins misusing their tools or behaving poorly with others? What guideline and method would you follow as an arbitrator (and would want ArbCom to follow) in correcting/punishing abusive admins in cases that may come before you? Rama's arrow 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Punishing? Very little - the arbcom ought not be in the punishment business. In terms of correction, I don't really see many problems with the current system. Bad sysops get desysopped or put under restrictions, and either learn or don't stay as sysops. Is there a problem in the system that I'm unaware of that requires correction? Phil Sandifer 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

10. I'm not sure if this is part of your job description, but what would you do to improve the enforcement of ArbCom decisions? What is your take on an ArbCom decision being read or not read as a precedent for similar issues that may arise? Rama's arrow 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

    I think it's generally important to keep a line between the arbcom and the enforcement, hence the arbcom not making its own blocks. That said, past arbcom rulings due tend to be a good way to guess at future arbcom rulings, and anyone who ignores the precedent set by an arbcom ruling does so at their own risk, both because the arbcom will almost certainly look unfavorably on it, and because any admin who acts to enforce the principles is unlikely to meet with serious opposition. Phil Sandifer 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

11. Mr. Spinner, have you stopped beating your wife yet? (Sorry, obligatory) Ral315 (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

    No. Phil Sandifer 01:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Brian New Zealand

I will be asking the same questions to every candidate thus they do not specifically target you

• Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam etc) If so, would you recluse yourself from cases centred on these?

• • This seems to me primarily a question about the arbitrational equivalent of NPOV. I have opinions on certain matters. I also recognize that my opinions and what a Misplaced Pages article should look like are two very different things. Certainly I can't think of anything I have such a strong opinion on that I ought not edit it because I can't be NPOV. Thus I would say the same applies to arbitration. Phil Sandifer 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
  • Recusal, as is proper. Phil Sandifer 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
  • I think I've shown a willingness to contest the decisions of just about anybody. Phil Sandifer 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?
  • I don't think this is something that can readily be guessed from the outside, and I think it depends heavily on what cases are before the committee, what the other members are, and what their time commitments are. Certainly I intend to be able to put in substantial amounts of time over the next year, and if I feel like I am unable to give the job the time it deserves, I will step down. Phil Sandifer 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
  • Of course not. Phil Sandifer 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator?
  • I'm honestly not sure what you're looking for with this question. A platitude about collaboration and some hard editing dispute I was involved in? Phil Sandifer 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
  • I think the decision-making process is often occluded. I do not, however, think that the reasoning for a decision is often unclear. That seems to me an acceptable framework. The sausage making does not need to be a public display. However, it must be clear what the justification for the decision is. Phil Sandifer 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Addition: Furthermore, it is of course important to have public input on a case and to demonstrate that the public input was actually listened to. Workshop and Evidence pages, as well as all arbitration talk pages, are vital for this purpose. But if the question is about whether I oppose things like the arbcom mailing list, no, of course I don't. Phil Sandifer 15:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions? Brian | (Talk) 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think members of the community who have established themselves, shown that they enjoy the respect of their peers, and have offered a great deal of service to the project are treated differently in all aspects of the encyclopedia. This extends to arbitration. It is not a matter of bias towards people with the sysop bit, but rather a matter of a bias towards the level of respect and commitment involved in acquiring that bit. That does not mean administrators are above reproach. It does, however, mean that well-meaning and positive contributions mitigate against negative aspects. Administrators, by the nature of the process through which they become administrators, are likely to have demonstrated such respect and commitment. Phil Sandifer 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Follow-up Many thousands of excellent and dedicated editors have no desire to be sysops, preferring instead to focus on editing. For that reason, they may also be less well-known than the "political class". Would you extend more trust to a sysop than to an ordinary long-term editor without a history of conflict? How would you evaluate the relative "positive contributions" of someone who mostly sysops, and someone who mostly edits? Derex 08:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Where possible, yes. I mean, one has to note, trust is a social phenomenon. It's difficult to trust someone you do not know, and somebody who generally avoids talk pages and namespace pages where one meets one's fellow editors is thus likely to be less trusted - not on any sort of judgment of merit, but because nobody knows them. On the other hand, such users rarely find their way to the arbcom, so this is to some extent neither here nor there. And obviously, one has to look at the histories of all of the users involved in arbitration to try to avoid unfortunate oversights. Certainly if I realized a user in an arbitration was a long-time editor who mostly did small, relatively thankless jobs and had the good sense to avoid the beuraucratic elements of Misplaced Pages, I'd be inclined to extend them a measure of trust and deference. Phil Sandifer 14:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

From Scobell302

Having ran in the last ArbCom election, have you learned anything from that election that you'll apply to this election?

From the election? No. Since the election? I've become, I think, more aware of the complex role process plays in making decisions on Misplaced Pages, and the way in which bad process causes wide-ranging destruction. I've learned the importance of flexibility in the rules, and the fact that adding a new rule may correct one problem, but will almost certainly cause three more, particularly if that rule has a piece of process attached to it. But from the election itself? No, not really. Phil Sandifer 14:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional Questions

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 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

   Oversight, I think, needs to be more widely disseminated, since the current people who have it are, by the nature of their responsibilities, rarely involved enough in editing to see the edits that need to be nuked. Such applications should be conducted via a thorough review of the applicant's editing history and conduct in disputes. I lean towards not allowing self-noms for it, but I could be talked out of that easily. As for Checkuser, I don't think there's a practical need for wider dissemination of that power, but there might be something to be gained by increasing the number of people who have it outside of the arbcom by one or two. Still, because of the high privacy concerns involved here, this is still something that needs to be distributed very, very carefully. I might pick two or three well-respected admins to give it to, I might not.

2. What sort of arbitration activities have you been involved in, in the past? Have you been involved in any ArbCom cases previously? Do you have any experience in settling disputes? --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 06:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

   I've been less active in arbitration this year, due to it being a year where I have been in courses every week save for three. I'm out of coursework as of December, and will have more time, which I will devote either to clerking or arbitrating, depending on the will of the community. Before that, however, I had been involved in about a dozen and a half arbitration cases, usually as the person raising the case. I wrote Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case based on that experience, and was also the first selected clerk (before the position was made official) based on that experience. These cases ranged from dealing with highly disruptive users (CheeseDreams, John Gohde, Lir) to good users with a track record of problems as well (Everyking, WHEELER), to complex cases where nobody was being "bad," but where subtle policy issues were at stake (Webcomics, and my current minor involvement in the Pseudoscience and Children's Privacy cases). I suspect, though the more active clerks may have made this untrue, that I am more experienced in the arbcom than any non-arbitrator. Phil Sandifer 14:57, 2 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.

• The pedophilia box case. In this case, the arbcom (quite rightly) observed that policy and process do not trump common sense and judgment. Though not a sea change in how Misplaced Pages was run (Honestly, it had always worked that way), it did mark a major warning that has yet to be recorded elsewhere. Every year, there's one or two cases like that, where substantial shifts in the policy of Misplaced Pages occur. The arbcom has astonishing influence over Misplaced Pages, and it's important to be aware of who you're putting on it. Phil Sandifer 17:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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?

• Policy? Nothing. Guideline? WP:RS, a broken mass of kludges that were assembled with no thought to most of our articles and less thought to sanity. Process? WP:DRV, the biggest cesspool of process-over-thought on Misplaced Pages today, sufficiently bad that I consider it wholly not worth consultation or respect. Phil Sandifer 17:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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?

• I have, and I will. Phil Sandifer 17:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

• I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this question. Phil Sandifer 17:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

4a. How accountable, integrity and transparent would you want/expect members of the Arbitration Committee (inlcuding yourself if elected) to be?

• I'm not sure how one could dodge accountability as an arbitrator, since votes are public. Similarly, the level of transparency seems set - as I said, I think the reasoning behind arbitration rulings is generally quite clear and explicit. As for integrity, I will conduct arbitration with the same integrity I've conducted all my dealings on Misplaced Pages. I'll let my record and history in the community speak for what that is. Phil Sandifer 21:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

5. You've been listed as an inactive ArbCom clerk. Why is that so, and do you really have the devotion of time to take up this repsonsibility as an Arbitrator?

• That is because I've been carrying a massive research load over the past year while taking a substantial number of courses as well. As of December I will be finished with all coursework for my degree, leaving me with a far more flexible schedule. Phil Sandifer 21:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional questions

1) Your statement includes the following: "The de facto committees that form around the frightening number of guidelines we have need disentangling, and furthermore need an exceedingly subtle touch that does not overplay the arbcom's hand and weaken its reputation."

Since they're guidelines and not policy, why do you think they require disentangling?

Exactly what role do you seen for arbcom in disentangling the guidelines?

Do you intend to base rulings strictly on policy, or is it your intention to enforce guidelines, too?

2) Your user page states

Lord knows the rules are making me nervous and depressed. So I'll follow all the stuff I can remember, and not try too hard to learn the other stuff .... I'll just zap 'em for 24 hours two warnings early, and call it a day .... I'll just say "Yeah, but what's wrong with what I'm doing?" "It violates policy" isn't enough.

Would your outlook as an arbitrator be similar, or would you follow due process if elected? Derex 06:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)