Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:24, 16 November 2008

This utility is for asking a question of a candidate. Editors who are eligible to vote may also ask a question, via one of the following methods:

1. Ask a general question: post a question on that link. All candidates will then be able to copy the question over to their Question page and will respond as they see fit.
2. Ask an individual question: pick the statement of the candidate you wish to pose the question to from Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements, click the "Questions for the candidate" link, go to #Individual questions, and post the question there. Only this candidate will respond to that question.

Please keep questions succinct and relevant, and do make an effort to ensure you aren't overlapping a general question that has already been asked (even if the candidate hasn't yet copied it over to his or her individual question page), or indeed an individual question that has already been asked of this candidate.

Guidance for candidates: Candidates are requested to answer all questions that are put to them, including all general questions, to ensure the Community is as fully informed as it wishes to be before voting commences. You are, of course, welcome to refuse to answer a question if you feel uncomfortable doing so, but do remember that that may well result in a voter choosing to oppose you. If a question is a near-duplication of another, you are—of course—welcome to as an answer to that question simply refer the editor to your response to the similar question.

Questions from Angus McLellan

As a sitting arbitrator it's much easier for us to see what you'd do. It's all there in the archives, unless you've changed your mind since. Let me start with the really obvious question. The Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman case: threat or menace? Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The very recent request in this matter makes it easier to answer here. (As a party to the case, I was recused, and so will continue, not answering there.) The very frank way in which User:Shoemaker's Holiday is now able to address his dreadful personal situation at the end of 2007 means I shall be able drop a self-imposed reticence about things I knew then.

Someone may be in love with Misplaced Pages or the idea of it, but everyone should (for heaven's sake) give priority to their mental health, college education, financial situation. Someone with bad problems on all three fronts should not (good grief) be seeking the arduous and stressful post of arbitrator here. Someone with serious depression needs to get treatment and whatever counselling they can; taking on the role of admin here dealing with controversial blocks is not what they need; and we should desysop admins not in a fit mental state, unless they volunteer another way. These matters are better discussed in private emails than on the Adminstrators' Noticeboard, by a factor of a hundred.

I see no need to tweak the status of the Matthew Hoffman case legalistically, here on the site. The right decision was taken, by the wrong route no doubt (that often happens in Arbitration cases). What interest of Misplaced Pages does this serve? If anyone thinks I'm unsympathetic to Shoemaker's Holiday's psychotherapeutic needs, that would be because they don't know me well in real life. (I have two kids at college myself and taught students at Cambridge in the 1980s. I know about depression, and well enough not to take a sufferer's analysis at face value. Mental illness kills - my officemate in 1979, Takuro Shintani, a brilliant mathematician, committed suicide in 1980.) I have no difficulty in reckoning all this in human terms, and I have been entirely miserable about being constrained by recusal and other factors to keep quiet about it. That doesn't mean I accept some other opinions I have heard about the business.

I'll add a note about User:Jehochman. His involvement didn't help matters, and I used harsh language about that. He and I have resolved our differences, it seems, and he is a candidate in these elections. I will endorse him if he wants that.

Charles Matthews (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not reveal my health problems of December/January in order for the arbcom to continue to use them to attack me, I revealed them because of a gross violation of confidentiality by Morven in July, where he used them to attack me. Furthermore, I don't see how you could have been aware of the situation with my health, as such things were first mentioned in deleted edits made a day after you went on a multi-week sabbatical and your involvement with the case ended. If you were somehow aware of the situation, your behaviour and language used to describe me would be all the more appalling. Please delete your above response. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, please take up that point with those organising the election. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Chaser

Re: Matthew Hoffman; in retrospect, is there anything you would have done differently? How did your role as an Arbitrator influence that case?

I think some people are looking for "penance" (scare quotes: I'm not a Catholic, whatever people may think). You can read about what I did in December after leaving the site. Others have brought this up again. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from jc37

I'm only asking this of User:Jdforrester and User:Charles Matthews, as I think you're the only two returning candidates. (Not sure what to make of bishzilla's candidacy).

(Note that any candidate is welcome to copy this question to their questions page, and answer it.)

What's your feeling about reducing term length to 2 year terms? - jc37 11:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mildly negative. The bigger issue is having enough good people in place at any one time. From the point of view of that and continuity, you wouldn't reduce 3 to 2 for those who had the option in many cases where someone wanted it. If your definition of "good" is pleasing to the community, then you'd be for the change. I can't point to anything specific to justify changing.

I suppose it would be honest to comment that those who aim to do 3 have to pace themselves. But all arbitrators have to learn that, in a sense: burn-out is perhaps most common and quickest in those who mean very well but don't get to a good way of coping with the workload. And that's a personal discovery, typically. If elected with the community's trust, one has a duty to try to be useful for the elected term. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be obtuse in response, but your answer seems to contradict itself. If I am understanding you right, you suggest that 3 is preferrable in order to have "good people in place at any one time", and "continuity". But you also identify that burn-out is fairly common.

Could you clarify? And further, would you illustrate why you may feel that reduction is problematic for the former, and also not considered worthwhile for the latter? - jc37 15:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The first point is quite easy. If Arbitrator A is well-suited to the work, and could manage 2 years or 3 years, the proposal puts A up for election after 2 years. A may not feel like standing again, or it might be a bad time for some transient real world reason. We could lose some good people's work that way.

Everyone knows that Arbitrators burn out, and Arbitrators know why, in general terms. But the point here is that if Arbitrator B is elected for 3, serves 2 and says "enough, enough", nothing is lost compared to the parallel universe in which B is elected for 2. In other words, assuming three-year Arbitrators retire after 1, 2 or 3 years, they get to choose which, while a two-year system reduces their options to retirement after 1 or 2. It's not as simple as that, but that was the answer to the point you were asking. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's not that simple. (For one thing, your argument would seem to equally apply if we were currently using 10 year terms, and someone was suggesting reducing it to 9.)

That said, you offer a valid enough personal perspective.

Thank you for clarifying your position. - jc37 16:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from M.K.

• Can you name the hardest Arb case in which you had been involved? M.K. (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar is the all-time arbkiller case; I went on leave in that mid-August, not long after Newyorkbrad returned, because (as I indicated in my statement) I had real life issues (from end July), of the type no one finds easy to deal with, and they had to have priority. Of things that have been actual cases, I think this generated the highest levels of stress for arbitrators (because of the nature of the case) that I have known, close to the tolerance levels of normal folk. NYB wrote up a good account, which I largely agree with.

Every Giano case is very tough, because the committee is always divided and we get into loops arguing. Very hard to come to a decision is different from stressful as in "harrowing". There are other criteria, such as can come into play with drama that the community sends us with expectations that are tough to meet. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Giano

Seeing as you have mentioned me, please do not use me as an excuse for your and the Arbcom's ineptitude and a reason for continually making bad decisions. Yes, I remember Brad's return well - I fixed it; I'm glad that allowed you some time out. At least if a case concerns me, you don't all have to go into a protective huddle and keep things secret, which is not always the case is it? If you want to discuss the Slim Virgin and Lar case in full then do so, that would be a novel first, but don't make references if not. Finally, please don't mention me in future and you will not have me here. Show some common decency, for once, and I will return the complement. OK? A one word answer will do. Giano (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

People here are holding me accountable for three years as Arbitrator. I wish to answer properly and fully. On my talk page you have posted something related, and I've answered there on matters concerning you. So I think we can agree to hold further discussions there. But I will not accept a gag.

I wrote the first draft of Slim Virgin-Lar (see my election statement). I was dealing with SlimVirgin, as she has made public elsewhere. I took leave shortly (days) after we had a working draft, so did not vote. There was more than one draft. I can say that much, I think. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not forgotten your comment of monumental stupidity, naivity and ignorance during the Eternal Equimox case. On that occasion you proved yourself to be in exactlty the same mould as Fred Bauder? Bauder I can accept was an aging old fool. You I hold completely responsible for turning a dedicated editor into someone determined t see Misplaced Pages reformed. You should not be allowed anywhere near an Arbitration committee. Are you still in that mould or have you respun yourself?

Finally, on your we see you in best politician style helping the infirm, very commendable, but did these people have any say in the using of their images to promote yourself and your goodly works? Giano (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:The Land Surveyor

These are questions I am putting to all candidates - apologies if they have already been asked you before.

1. Vested contributor. I'm not sure I understand this term, but the way one defines it seems also to define one's position on Misplaced Pages itself. On one definition, it is a contributor who feels that because of their contributions, they stand above the ordinary rule of law on the wiki. On the other definition, it is a user who makes strong and positive and lasting contributions to the project, but whose behaviour can be pointed and forthright, leading him or her to come into conflict with the - same might say - narrow-minded and absurd conception of civility that seems to rule on the project these days. Which definition do you prefer?
2. Reasonable behaviour Some have suggested that the criterion for civility should reflect the legal concept of what is 'reasonable' rather than anything else. What is your take on this?
3. Content contributors A closely connected question: it is often argued by those who defend the 'narrow concept' of civility above, that there is no harm in blocking or banning an expert contributor because the gap will soon be filled - there is a practically infinite supply of potential contributors to Medieval semantics, say, who will make good the missing expertise of the existing contributors on that subject who have been banned. Do you agree with that argument?
4. Banned users still editing. This question has been put by other users, but I ask it again, if that is all right. It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly. But that suggests there has been some sort of consensus in the community to allow them back. Which suggests in turn that either there was a clear fault in the policy that caused them to be banned, or that the policy had not been correctly implemented. In either case, should not these cases, however divisive they may be to the community, be taken to Arbcom?
5. Criterion for RFAR A connected question: given the limited time available to Arbcom, what criteria should there be for taking a case to RFAR. All the available evidence suggests the committee is slow to react or reply to requests. Would clear criteria for a case being submitted be of use? If so, what should those be?

I wish you the very best with your candidacy, I hope it goes the way you would like, but also that it goes the way that is ultimately of benefit to the community and the project. The Land Surveyor (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

1. No comment but The underlying problem is with any editor who cannot or will not treat other Wikipedians in good standing as colleagues from my talk page.
2. Legal concepts can clarify social concepts on Misplaced Pages; but they are good servants, bad masters.
3. I will go a long way to work with experts who have social problems on Misplaced Pages that can be resolved. See recent dispute in resolution for what this may take.
4. It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly. Not absurd to me. Forgive, and forget in public.
5. A serious dispute with serious prior attempts at resolution can be taken to WP:RFAR. It will be worth the wait if it was really serious.

Charles Matthews (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Note your numbering does not match the questions, and may be confusing to others. To a similar question about banned users, Rlseve replied "WP:BANNED does not allow editing by banned users. Period. By circumventing that, socking to get around that makes a mockery of our process and is a slap in the face to those who the banned user harmed, which is the whole community and the encyclopedia itself. Allowing this behavior is just asking for controversy. By applying this policy as it was meant to be avoids certain wiki drama and prevents the banned user from having only his good side seen in the spotlight. If an editor in good standing wants to reinstate those edits, that's okay, but allowing editing by banned users, all of whom have been given multiple chances before being banned, makes a mockery of our policy on banning. " Actually I tend to agree with him. That such a thing should happen suggests either the user should stay banned (policy is policy after all, and is our only protection against anarchy and the law of the frontier) or that we should be questioning the policy, or our implementation of it. I'm a little concerned about your candidacy for a role requires not just judgement, but judgment about policy. Could you address this concern? Thanks. The Land Surveyor (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BANNED says bans apply to the person and not the account, but that is not a policy page. It lies in a subcategory of Category:Misplaced Pages administration. So let's take that as the administrative position. From the point of view of sockpuppets, that tells you what you need to know. Alternate accounts are permitted under some circumstances. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks for taking the time to answer these questions. The Land Surveyor (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

General

Question from Ultraexactzz

Good luck with your candidacy. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1. If you had to describe the ideal role of an Arbitrator in one word, what would that word be?

   Lowcentreofgravity. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Giggy

1. a/s/l?

2. What is your opinion on the apparent divide in editors who focus primarily in mainspace, and those who focus primarily in project space? What would you do to help ease conflicts that come as a result of clashes between these editors? This is a deliberately open ended question.

3. What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?

4. Pick one arbitration case opened in the last year that contains a final decision with which you disagree. How do you think the case should have been handled, what different proposals would you have made, etc.? Again, somewhat open ended.

5. Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Misplaced Pages.

6. Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?

Thank you and good luck. Giggy (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Questions added via the global question list.

1. 54, male, in UK.
2. It's a division of labour. Misplaced Pages has always accepted the division of labour on the site (and software development, etc.) You can check my edits are very largely in mainspace. I don't believe I come into conflict with anyone on the basis of where they edit, rather than how. It seems an invalid reason for a fight. Conflicts need to be moved into conflict resolution: what other answer do you expect?
3. It certainly might not be appropriate or practical, depending on the case.
4. Pass.
5. Five? In mathematics, I started 500 articles early in my life here: background and genesis of topos theory is one I still like. Finishing off the list of current Italian dioceses, after work on ancient and current French dioceses. Upgrading Gilbert Murray. Writing John Dury. Recent article on Ramism was an intense job of getting a vague area into encyclopedic form.
6. No, a convention that sitting arbitrators don't having grown up. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Sarcasticidealist

I'm repeating a couple of questions I asked on User:MBisanz's excellent voter guides; those of you who answered there can feel free to copy and paste your answers from there.

1. To what extent do you believe that Misplaced Pages policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?

2. What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?

3. At least one candidate has committed to being "open to recall" in much the same way as administrators in Category:Administrators open to recall. What is your view of the wisdom of this, and do you see yourself making a comparable commitment?

I echo both the thanks and the best wishes of the above questioners.

1. There is a lot more to reading and applying policy than that. You can assume that "normally" is tacit in a great deal of it. The hidden assumption that policies are drafted like legal documents is wrong. There is the tacit "policies are not drafted like legal documents" therefore, which we express as "no wikilawyering". And then there is no need to enforce all aspects of policy.
2. Net plus. Remember that when, for example, checkuser appointments are made, the more people vetting the safer the process will be.
3. Good decisions may be unpopular at the time, and look better when the dust has settled. No, I don't think this is a useful pledge. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Celarnor

1. What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (.e,g, types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?
3. What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?

1. If a remedy is also in effect passed as a Principle, it is an indication of how a future case on the same general topic would go. So by that mechanism ("no one should do A" as well as "X shouldn't do A") it can be done.
2. "Duties": in the style of Noël Coward's "learn your lines and don't bump into the other actors", it is "go and vote, and have something to contribute in discussions". Apart from that, there is the other stuff I mentioned in my statement. I'm not sure about "obligations". There isn't a set way to do the job. Since the ArbCom mailing list is a clearing house, one should drop information that comes one's way into it. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from LessHeard vanU

This follows from the various attempts this year at addressing the means by which Administrators can be desysopped, none of which has gained sufficient traction.

1. Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the above, and all the best in your endeavour.

All such cases are considered on their merits. The problem can be that diffs are provided going back many months, not evidencing a current concern. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Carnildo

1. How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?

I asked early 2006 and was told "spend 30 minutes a day". There was a lot less email to read, then. But you can be a good Arbitrator on 3 to 4 hours a week, I think, if you know where to place that effort. An even pace is good, but I haven't worked at an even pace, rather given certain things priority. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from WilyD

1. During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally). While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:

1. Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over a regular editing issue? Are there any special considerations? If it is not appropriate, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
2. Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when? If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?

Admins disagreeing with other admins always have a primary duty to resolve it by direct negotiation. I'm a hawk on this point. With 1000+ admins, it is very egoistical to assume your particular beef with another admin is an exception. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from PhilKnight

1. In what situations would you recuse yourself? Obviously, I'm not asking for a generic answer, but instead I'm genuinely interested in what subject areas, or conflicts involving which users, you would recuse yourself. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Imagine there is a case involving an editor who had been pushing a scientific racist viewpoint, and then another editor describes them as racist. Then an uninvolved admin blocks the second editor for a personal attack. How should this be handled?

1. Apart from as a party, I recused on the case of Jossi where I'd given an interview on the matter. That was to do with propriety. Recusal is a personal matter, and others are too quick to demand it.
2. Clarification of intention can remove the imputation of a personal attack. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Thatcher

1. The Arbitration Committee handles a wide variety of complex situations on the private mailing list, some presenting moral and ethical dilemmas that never come to the full attention of the wider community. How would you handle some of these situations?

A. A checkuser forwards to the Arbcom mailing list evidence that a large number of vandal accounts share a single IP address and a single user agent with an administrator. After internal discussion, the IP address is blocked Anon only, ACB, under the theory that since the IP is a workplace, it might be shared, but that if the admin is the vandal, he will "get the hint." The admin takes a short unannounced hiatus, then returns as if nothing had happened. Right call or wrong call and why? Does the kind of vandalism make a difference?

Too hard for me. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

B. A checkuser who is an active editor of a particular article or topic sees a new user acting suspiciously like a previously banned user. What should the checkuser do?

(a) Run the check himself. After all, he is the most familiar with the banned user's editing patterns, and if the account turns out to be an unrelated editor, there is no privacy violation as long as the checkuser does not discuss the findings with anyone.

(b) Ask an uninvolved checkuser to evaluate the need for a check, and then run the check if needed. Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is worth the delay and inconvenience.

(c) Write your own answer.

I'm not a checkuser. If ever I was, I would try to find out the standard approach and follow it. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

C. User:Smith is banned after a long series of behavioral problems including harassment of User:Jones, which Smith continues on his personal blog. A checkuser presents evidence that Smith has returned as User:Smythe. His editing is without incident and he is avoiding Jones. The Committee decides to ignore the Smythe account. Some time later, Smith emails the Committee, disclosing the Smythe account and pointing out Smythe's good edits, and asking to be unbanned. However, he has continued to post negative comments about Jones on his blog, and Jones objects to allowing Smith to edit under any account name. What should be done?

You go back to Smith and ask what gives? Are you a Wikipedian? Charles Matthews (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

2. In private discussions about a pending arbitration case, there is a split between a group of Arbitrators who want strong sanctions and a group that want mild or no sanctions. Is it better to propose a middle of the road decision that everyone can sort of support, or to write a proposed decision with both the mild and severe remedies and have an open vote? What should happen if neither the mild nor severe remedy gets a majority? Does public disagreement improve or impair the Committee's credibility?

The 1, 1a, 1b approach is the easy way out. If writing up a case, you leave one out that should be there, someone else can add it. If you put in too much, there can be the situation where nothing actually passes. So it better to add alternates only when it is clear that there are at least two views. Forget about public disgreement either way: work to do. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Just as there are consequences for taking action as an Arbitrator, there are consequences for inaction. The mailing list receives 70-100 messages per week. I do not believe it is humanly possible for an editor to remain fully engaged in whatever aspects of Misplaced Pages they currently enjoy, and also be fully engaged in the business of the Arbitration Committee. If you do not fully engage in the mailing list, you might miss a legitimate ban appeal, or the chance to comment on an important private matter, or an important policy discussion. If you skip an Arbitration case or two in order to spend time writing articles, you might later discover that the decision had provisions you find incorrect or objectionable. How will you balance your regular wiki-work with participation on Arbcom? If you opt out of some matters to avoid having all your time consumed by Arbcom, what will you do if those matters are resolved in an unsatisfactory matter?

Your obligation is to do as much as you can of really helpful Arbitration work, not to beat yourself up. You are going to do that by getting a life-balance right, not any other way. You could start by trying to figure what is getting ignored, and see if there is a niche. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

4. Have you disclosed your real name and employer? If not, are you prepared to have that information involuntarily disclosed? Would such involuntary disclosure impact your service on the Arbitration Committee?

Editing under my real name. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Newyorkbrad

1. Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:

(A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;

(B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;

(C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on WP:RfAR) and for clarification or modification of prior decisions;

(D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users on the arbitrators' mailing list;

(E) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;

(F) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;

(G) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain).

I have done A (only recently), the rest bar F, and under G talking and mediating with some awkward folk, some publicity work. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Please review the current arbitration policy at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy, as well as the proposed updating and revision of the policy that I posted a few weeks ago (based in part on some input from the ArbCom RfC over the summer) at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy proposed updating and the later draft posted by arbitrator FT2 at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy proposed updating/FT2. Do you have any comments on the proposed changes? Are there any changes you would support to the policy, or to ArbCom's current procedures, beyond those proposed there?

Don't make recusal a lawyer-like thing. It is not jury selection. We don't know people's actual interests, just perhaps what they edit on, or choose to disclose. I'm a Deadhead but don't edit related articles. Don't get us into a system that would defeat its own purpose. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Although the committee was quite busy when I joined it in January, and there have been a few high-profile "mega" cases in the past few months, in general the Arbitration Committee's caseload has been lower during the past three months or so than at any time since the committee was created in 2004. Please share any thoughts you have on this situation, including its causes and whether it is a good or bad thing.

It is surely because admins deal with much disruption now (possibly in too authoritarian a way, sometimes, but mostly because vandals and trolls today haven't learned anything new to do). So that much is being settled lower down in the system. People may despair (wrongly) of getting justice, but most requests fail because of lack of previous efforts (i.e. weren't serious attempts). The major cases are like freak events. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo

1. Say you are given the power to implement or abolish one policy on Misplaced Pages by fiat, with immediate effect, no questions asked. What would that be?

2. Hence or otherwise (of Q1), should ArbCom be in the business of creating new policy, amend an existing policy, or abolish any policy as a result of any outcome of a case? If so, should the community be consulted on such matters beforehand?

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?

4. "Change We Need" and "The same old Washington that's broken" is a favourite mantra for candidates running for office, and that includes this election. Would you, and how would you reform ArbCom? And how can editors be sure that you will stay true to your promise?

1. No current ideas. (Well, tidy userspace guidelines as in a motion I suggested recently.)
2. Some say that this is a black-and-white thing (ArbCom cannot). Others say that this is a grey area. The answer probably lies somewhere in between. (With apologies to Lord Melbourne.) Look, my country doesn't have a written constitution. Constitutional issues come up and matter, but that is different to saying there is a written constitution here, separation of powers and all, or should be.
3. No, ArbCom shouldn't be in charge of off-wiki forums. The remit is editor behaviour on the site.
4. I've posed issues in my statement. I've suggested an elected Secretary above. I think we should have an email form for routine mails to ArbCom, making the inbox handling more standard (developer time needed). I think we should stay with self-assigning work, just manage it a little better. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754

Arbcom questions 2008 - these will be asked at the December 2008 elections and scored on a hidden rubric, which will determine my level of support.

Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2007, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support.

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
2. a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
3. 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)
4. Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
5. 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?
6. An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Misplaced Pages. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
7. An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Misplaced Pages. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
8. a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
9. (This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Misplaced Pages community?

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 06:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Long, but it mattered only to a few people, really.
2. No set purpose. WikiProjects can provide models, but have no direct enforcement powers.
3. No one has any rights here. There are only permissions, and these should be used to forward the mission.
4. Mostly not, I guess. This would be about meatpuppetry? There would only be a duck test for that, and other things.
5. Vandalism is by definition malicious rather than clueless. All tools and powers can be used to help the project.
6. Mostly "ignore".
7. Knowledge of English defines intelligence? WP:BITE followed by warning notes to user talk.
8. No universal criterion. We have a vague definition of "disruption" but don't expect anything precise.
9. The current problems are different in detail, but the same in kind, as always have been there. It is hard to change things, and there are more and more rules and specific guidelines. You should ask what the impact is on the mission, not whether this is utopia. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Maxim

1. What is your stance on wheel-warring? What do you define as wheel-warring? As an arbitrator, how would you respond to a case surrounding a wheel war?
2. What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
3. What is your opinion on adminbots? The bot policy was updated to allow adminbots to bypass RfA, going only through BRfA, and fully-automated unapproved adminbots were required to be approved via BRfA. What is your opinion on handling unapproved adminbots? What is your general opinion on high-speed admin tools, which are not fully automated (like Twinkle)?

1. My views on wheel-warring have hardened over time. Now I would start with 0RR for all admin actions and work outwards on a schematic: required pre-discussion and post-notifications, availability and responsiveness, alternates to direct discussion. I'd get into errors and urgency, and IAR. And a third dimension is what we are talking about. Reversing a speedy of a non-attack new article with post-notification isn't much of a wheel war. That third dimension is a whole gamut.
2. Based on analysis of the evidence? No, I think you mean a poll, and voting is still evil.
3. I don't have an informed opinion on bots. I've known Twinkle users be a nuisance. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from FT2

These are some questions about WP:CLUE and insight, focussing on a role as a member of Arbcom. Research is allowed and encouraged. (Arbitrators need to be 'on the ball' and able to pick up impressions fairly accurately.)

1. (Questions removed. I have decided, on reflection, to ask them individually to candidates, this year at least. I'll see how it goes in deciding if that has worked better than asking them centrally. Also may help with follow-up. To see the questions, look at a candidates' Q&A page where I've asked them.)

I expect to add a couple more to these, and will be interested to see the results. They are intended to be searching. Feedback will be provided. Thank you. FT2  00:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from rootology

Hello, thank you for running for the AC election! Good luck, or our sympathies are with you, depending on certain points of view! I'll be asking everyone these same questions.

Questions:

1. In regards to the massive "omnibus" case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, do you think bundling it all together was helpful to Misplaced Pages? Why, or why not?

2. On the same aforementioned Omnibus case, the question came up here of impartiality in voting by the seated Arbiters. It was shown there that a seated, voting arbiter in the case was unwilling to support "subjective" findings that all the users were valuable contributors to Misplaced Pages, even ones who have created multiple Featured Articles (to the point of being leaders on the all-time list for most Featured Articles, ever). Should someone be seated as an Arbiter, unless they are always capable of being impartial in cases they choose to not recuse from? Why, or why not?

3. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Misplaced Pages community controlling Arbitration Committee policy, and the AC following the framework of policy that the community sets out for them in how to conduct business?

4. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Misplaced Pages Arbcom elections being totally owned by and controlled by the community of editors? As in, as how it is on other language Wikipedias--elections are done as straight votes/consensus, with the leaders being seated based on that alone, subject solely to the will of their peers.

5. Do you think an Arbiter should be placed on the Committee without a clear endorsement/supporting majority vote of the community they will be serving during the election? If yes, why? If no, why?

6. You get to set a mandate, one sentence in length, for policy on how the Arbitration Committee will work--it could be AC policy, AC elections, AC responsibilities, mandates--anything and everything. No one can overrule this change, not Jimbo, not the other AC members, not the WMF board (so long as it's legal, of course); no IAR exemptions, and it is the Law of the Land forever in AC matters. What is it, in one sentence of 15 words or less?

7. Please rank these in order of whom the Arbcom serves and answers to, in order from first to last (the party who should have the most power over the AC goes first, the one who should have the least power over the AC goes last:

a) The Community

b) Jimbo Wales

c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee

d) The Wikimedia Foundation

Feel free to explain your ordering choices and your rationale behind them, if so inclined.

Thank you, and again--good luck. rootology (C)(T) 00:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Not to me! I did the first draft - printed down 75 pages of Evidence in 8 point, sat on a garden bench in the sun with a clipboard. I ended with a short (one page) draft, not much like the final version (my Principles mostly morphed into remedies). So on that basis, yes, merging the cases made sense because my draft Principles were common ground.
2. Not going to answer this on a colleague.
3. See my statement: the big divide is WikiProject style (people self-assign tasks) versus process-style. The community would almost certainly decide on process-style, so there are the queries I raised.
4. As in no Jimbo-filter. We are still many times the size of other projects, and basically much more diverse. So the ArbCom should reflect that diversity. I would say Jimbo should be able to appoint a woman if none were on the ArbCom - a male-only ArbCom would be much weakened. There are a few such places where you can make remarks.
5. Ideally people should have 2-to-1 support - 67% - to be elected. But the bar will have to be lowered if there is more and more partisan opposition. Being parachuted onto ArbCom with clear disapproval would be bad.
6. Annual June election of a voting Secretary to the ArbCom for a year.
7. To unseat an Arbitrator, it would be b, c, a, d. On general accountability it would be c, a. On certain matters of ethics and real-life factors d first. On enforcement, if the community refused to enforce a sanction you'd see that in terms of effective power it is a first. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Davewild

1. Do you support reducing the length of Arbitrators terms to under 3 years, and if you do and are elected, how will you go about trying to get this implemented?

Thanks. Davewild (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

See Question from jc37. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from roux

This question is to gauge your general thoughts on how civility applies as a general principle across WP. Please read the proposals here first.

1) Which conceptual statement(s), if any, in section A would you support or oppose, and why?

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?

2) a) If you oppose all proposed restrictions, but view low-level civility as a concern: what restrictions, if any, would you propose as alternatives to those outlined in section B?

Thank you for answering, and best of luck with the election. 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Specific policy points. I don't see much connection with being an Arbitrator. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)

This is actually a question suggested originally on Misplaced Pages Review; however, I think it's an intelligent – and in the current climate, significant – enough question to warrant asking. – iridescent 01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?

Relevant to me, certainly. I would as a substitute in some circumstances. Otherwise it depends. So many questions here about having a more rigid system. Would that help ultimately? Charles Matthews (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

Note to respondents: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so. Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.

1. Is the English Misplaced Pages's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:

   a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.

   b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.

2. Given that it is said that the English Misplaced Pages ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:

   a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?

   b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?

   c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.

3. It has been said that the English Misplaced Pages has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?

4. Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?

5. Misplaced Pages was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.

   a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

   b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?

   c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?

   d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Misplaced Pages identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?

   e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)

   f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?

   g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)

6. Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Misplaced Pages context.

   a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Misplaced Pages? Should some other body do so?

   b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.

   c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?

   d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Misplaced Pages to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.

   e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?

7. A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

   a) Should all discussion of Misplaced Pages remain ON Misplaced Pages, or is it acceptable that some occur off Misplaced Pages?

   b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Misplaced Pages? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?

   c) Please state your opinion of Misplaced Pages Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?

   d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?

   e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )

9. Does the English Misplaced Pages have a problem with meatball:VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?

10. What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)

1. Against any opt outs. Default to Delete would I think work out.
2. Policy. The BLP enforcement thing was worth trying as an experiment. If ArbCom suggests enforcement and the idea proves unpopular, the page will be retired. (c) Don't treat AfD as a monolith. Just means splitting a policy page, but that would require consensus.
3. Disagree. I have said "middle-aged", hitting its own limitations and not so easy to change.
4. One day we'll introduce flagged revisions to get BLP under control, I feel. That's the killer app. Nothing to do with the ArbCom.
5. Too much here. We need very strict onsite policies to control editors using personal info on others. We should protect pseudonyms. We are not a Swiss bank, and reasonable expectations on our privacy efforts should apply.
6. Too much here. The WMF is a voluntary organisation with a small paid staff. It is not chartered as investigative or protective or whatever. The mission concerns the development of 700 websites.
7. Revert all edits is a possible remedy. Tell me about the case before asking whether the remedy is good.
8. Not going to discuss offwiki here. Relevance to the ArbCom? I edited the Wikback.
9. Answered above. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern

1. Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Misplaced Pages. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
2. Civility restrictions: Civility restrictions imposed by the Arbcom seem to frequently prove divisive among administrators enforcing them. Frequently, one administrator feels the user in question has been uncivil and should be blocked, while another disagrees and unblocks shortly thereafter. Should the committee seek to change this? If so, how? Different restrictions? Different wording? Using them less frequently or not at all? Is there anything you would change about the committee's approach to the civility policy?

1. We tried outsourcing. All successful POV-pushing is a problem. The ArbCom could start taking more notice of SPA as a factor.
2. That's covered by my general answer on wheel-warring, in a sense. We need civility on the gamut of issues. I'm all for civility paroles. The enforcement is up to admins, who can ask to have wording changed. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

1. What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?

2. Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?

1. I'd hope for 67%
2. No. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from UninvitedCompany

1. Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Misplaced Pages?
2. Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
3. Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
4. Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
5. Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations? If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?
6. Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
7. Have you publicly revealed your actual name and address? Do you plan to do so if elected? If not, how do you plan to respond to any threats you may receive to publicize this information?
8. Do you have any friends, family members, or other people close to you IRL who edit Misplaced Pages? What are their user names and their relationships to you?
9. Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Misplaced Pages matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
10. What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee? Do they all carry equal weight?
11. What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept? Refuse?
12. How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
13. What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
14. Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?
15. Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most? Why?
16. To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
17. What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
18. To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
19. Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?

1. Five years at about 80 a day.
2. Doctorate in mathematics, now a writer.
3. Edited at Sensei's Library under my own name.
4. Nothing significant.
5. Object to the question under "leave it at the door". The answer is no, but this is like compulsory userboxes.
6. None other.
7. Already on ArbCom, using real name.
8. Intrusive. The answer is none, but what justification for this in public?
9. Never used IRC. Wikien-l, meetups.
10. Already on ArbCom. The mathematicians may think I serve them, but I mainly edit historical topics now.
11. Some types of cases are underestimated (science-related is the most obvious type).
12. The committee's remit doesn't include addressing that, I believe. It can help interpret diffs.
13. Onsite drama really requires "knocking heads together", but that's so meatspace and last century.
14. If you want something effective, you ban and let the checkusers take the strain. If people lack clue, in many cases no sanctions work; but surprisingly editing restrictions can be effective.
15. The next big job is a mail handling system. We could do better triage on cases to get them drafted.
16. Sad to see Morven go (good sense and clarity). I'm not going to talk about colleagues otherwise.
17. We are trying to do the best for the project, not dispense abstract justice. We must attempt a fair reading of the evidence, and be led by it, not just take "executive decisions".
18. Not really relevant. Subsidiarity means Board members get out of touch with daily concerns, but their job is to take a longer view. I talked to Cary Bass at the party in Alexandria: better liaison with the sharp end people in the Office would be a plus.
19. I've not participated. I have applied bans to support OTRS.
20. No. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from TomasBat

1. In general, which of these 2 concepts do you regard as higher priority? The concept of "user" as another human being or "what's best for the encyclopedia"? (would you be 200% fair and patient to a relatively new good faith user at the expense of commiting to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)

I have been "rewarded" by saving a user who was apparently a vandal, so although I have no concrete instances, it can always pay off to be kind to someone apparently troublesome. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from MBisanz

1. In the past there have been issues with arbitrators who did not reveal their real life identity onwiki, being harassed offwiki with the threat of revealing it. If you have not revealed your identity publicly and were threatened with someone revealing it with the intent to harass you, how would you respond? If your identity is already public, feel free to ignore this question.

N/a

Questions from Pixelface

1. Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you were listed as an involved party. (I am speaking of closed cases as well as active cases). Do you think the remedies given in the case(s) were helpful in resolving any disputes?
2. Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you, acting as a non-member of the committee, have provided a statement, or evidence, or /Workshop material. Do you feel it was worth your time in each case?
3. Please list all the requests for arbitration you've made. (If you can't remember them all, please describe some of the ones you *do* remember).

1. Main ones were Carl Hewitt and Matthew Hoffman.
2. Not many others ...
3. Matthew Hoffman. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Badger Drink

1. It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?
2. What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
3. This final question may be frustratingly broad - and might be superceded by smaller, more focused questions on individual aspects of the incident. But let's just get a broad overview for the time being: What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?

1. Pass.
2. Ten days of my life lost trying to pick up the pieces.
3. Unselective suggestions aren't that helpful. ArbCom could do with some technical and secretarial support. And folks, please don't elect people who are already well known because busy. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from BirgitteSB

Due to concerns over the way a non-public case was handled I once suggested some minimum standards for such cases . Which follow slightly clarified:

• Have at least two arbitrators develop comprehensive presentations of evidence in isolation.
• Allow all parties concerned to review at least the portions of the evidence presentations regarding their owns actions before any decision is reached.

I believe such standards will not only lessen the drama surrounding such cases, but are also necessary to have any confidence in the quality of the decision reached. In public cases the evidence presentations are usually left up the community and seldom is any one presentation comprehensive. However the scrutiny of the larger community is generally sufficient to tease out the weaknesses and strengths of the multiple presentations. Since private cases are necessarily denied this scrutiny it is imperative that evidence presentations are much stronger than in public cases. So I believe it is necessary for an arbitrator to collect the submissions of evidence into a comprehensive presentation even though such a thing is not done with public cases. Having two arbs put together presentations in isolation is an check on the subconscious bias of "finding what one is looking for." Allowing the parties to review the presentations concerning themselves is a final check on any misunderstandings, and a commonsense measure to build confidence in the whole process. How well do you agree with these suggested practices as I have outlined them?--BirgitteSB 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole business could certainly be clarified. Some people, though, assume that all ArbCom proceedings should be "adversarial" in character. ArbCom may have to develop its "inquisitorial" approach better: the hardest cases are getting harder, and sometimes the assumptions will not be the same as before. We need to respect "natural justice", certainly, but that involved defining summary actions as not "cases". As with other areas, it sounds like a lot more rules. I prefer a more pragmatic approach, but then I'm not a lawyer. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally can't imagine a more pragmatic approach, but I am open-minded to discussing anything that might work better. My two suggestions are not any sort borrowed legalistic rules based on "justice", but rather a pragmatic approach to ensure arbcom has the most complete understanding of the situation possible so that they may then have a rational claim to confidence in their decisions in non-public cases. Hopefully others will then have more confidence in arbcom in turn knowing the less transparent decisions are at least based on a more reliable process. I don't understand why you interpret what I wrote above as being based on anything legalistic or adversarial. I have always focused on things I believe will bring about the best results. I find adversarial approaches to be counter-productive and do not support them. I am not knowledgeable about legalistic methods, but I suspect they are rather inefficient and more trouble than they are worth for Misplaced Pages's purposes. Finally I would strengthen your statement above to say that arbcom has flat out failed to develop an inquisitorial approach.--BirgitteSB 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The comment on "adversarial" wasn't addressed to your question as such, but to the general issue of proceedings. Since anglophone countries tend to have an adversarial system in the technical sense, there has grown up an assumption that the ArbCom needs to adopt it (?) always. When you say arbcom has flat out failed to develop an inquisitorial approach, I think that neglects the work done outside cases, looking into matters in private and trying to address issues on the basis of obtaining the facts. This tends to happen on the email list. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from an eligible user with over 150 edits

1. Have you any criminal convictions?
2. If you were a vandal, how would you go about it?