Revision as of 23:28, 30 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.

General questions

Questions that an editor would like a majority of the—or all—candidates to answer should be asked as general questions. General questions are asked here, and copied over and answered by the candidate as s/he sees fit. Editors should ask general questions at that link, and not here; only the candidate should place questions here. (See top of page for guidance.)

Question from Ultraexactzz (answered)

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?

Objective

Whilst some sensitivity to the wishes of the community is needed, it is important that arbitrators not be influenced by personal feelings and interpretations, or the personalities involved in a given case.

Questions from Giggy (answered)

1. a/s/l?

   Mid-twenties, male, London.

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.

   I think it much of the problem in this area comes from a belief that people with different patterns of contributions should naturally be at odds. It is fairly normal in any society or organisation to find that people have different skills and interests and naturally tend to gravitate towards different niches. Respect and tolerance for other contributors is important, even if one does not choose to contribute in the same manner.

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

   Generally I think this should be avoided, with the exception of cases where someone uses Misplaced Pages as a means of furthering a stalking agenda by editing material connected to people they are harassing. The banning policy allows for edits to be reverted, it does not mandate it and judgment should in my opinion be applied in each case to determine whether this is appropriate.

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.

   I think the most obvious instance where a case had the wrong outcome was the "Matthew Hoffman" case. The sanctions in that case seemed disproportionate to those applied to other similar cases, especially when the user conduct RfC the case was adjourned for (which of course should have been required before the case was accepted) showed virtually zero community support for the desysopping. A reprimand would have been adequate, with desysopping left to a potential later case should the problem not be solved by this. I also think there should have been a finding concerning Charles Matthews' conduct in prosecuting the case and inappropriate comments made by him on the arbitration pages.

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

   Some time ago, I helped improve Misplaced Pages's article on Ruth Kelly (a UK government politician) to GA status. An interest in human rights topics lead to me contributing the page Declaration of Montreal, which I would be looking to expand should signatories increase, allowing for further coverage. I have worked on translations from articles on the French Misplaced Pages, such as Bernadette Chirac. My recent contributions, which I regret I have allowed to be squeezed out by other Misplaced Pages business, have been relatively short (though I believe valuable nonetheless) articles, such as that on the Truman Balcony of the White House and Matthew Bourne's dance adaption of the Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray.

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

   No, I will not unless I withdraw from the elections. Giving the impression that one does not support people with whom one may have to work closely and effectively risks causing unnecessary conflicts. There is enough room for disagreement between arbitrators without adding ill will about who voted for who in the election to the mix.

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

Questions from Sarcasticidealist (answered)

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?

   It is important that we policy is applied as evenly as possible. It to be consistent and unexpected applications of policy are best avoided. To that extent it needs capable of certain interpretation, lest enforcement be seen as partial. That said, it should not be applied blindly leading to negative consequences for the project. I support the idea that one should ignore all rules where this benefits the project. However, application of this principle needs to be cautious. If there is a consensus that ignoring a given rule in a given instance was in error, this should not be repeated. Similarly, if an IAR action is widely supported, policy should be modified to take account of this.

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

   Former arbitrators can be a source of valuable insight for current members. They can offer advice based on knowing matters that have been discussed on the list, and can make suggestions they would be uncomfortable making on the wiki. They can also look into matters the current members are too stretched to give full attention to - such as blocks reviews. However, that all has to be balanced against the fact that, whilst they may previous have had community trust, events since their service on the committee may mean that this confidence is no longer enjoyed. I think current arbitrators should be open to discussing whether a particular arbitrator should still remain on the list where there is clear evidence that they lack community confidence. A straight forward example of this would be an arbitrator who has since lost user rights in controversial circumstances.

   I also think there's a valid argument for separating out a list of only current arbitrators for cases where it would be inappropriate to include former members. There is no point in having an expanded list if this means that people are uncomfortable with sending it important material. Ideally, there should be a technical way of determining who can read any given "thread". This would allow even current arbitrators to be excluded where they have a conflict of interest and should not be privy to private deliberations.

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 am not convinced that this is a good idea and won't be doing the same. Arbitrators are appointed to three years terms and so there is an opportunity for the community to decide whether they should continue at that point. I think it important that arbitrators have the freedom to make decisions that they believe to be correct and not only those likely to be popular. I also believe that participation in such processes can disproportionate represent those who are unhappy with a recent action.

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

Questions from Celarnor (answered)

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")?

   I think it important that the Arbitration policy is updated to take into account how ArbCom's approach has changed in certain respects. There has been a necessity for broader sanctions, for example restricting certain actions in named topic areas and I believe the community is supportive of that in principle (though I worry that these are being overused at present as a perceived "magic fix"). It is important however that any changes to how the committee operates are not made against the wishes of the community and that the policy continues to guide how ArbCom acts. Policy should not be being created by the committee by fiat, nor should ArbCom stray into determining matters of content.

2. What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?

   I believe ArbCom members should conduct themselves with dignity and set appropriate standards for other users. They also need to be sensitive to how comments they make in general discussions might be read, ensuring that they don't take advantage of the perceived status of the position or give the impression of speaking for the committee when they do not.

Question from LessHeard vanU (answered)

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.

I've been having a look at how the Arbitration Committees of other project do things - especially those of the French and German Wikipedias (I am after all constrained by language). There seems to be a lot less soul searching on other projects where admin misconduct is concerned: Admins who misuse their tools through repeating actions others have reverted, who protect pages they are actively involved in editing, or who block others they are involved in disputes with are desysopped. Temporarily the first time and permanently if abuse continues. There is I think something to be said for such practice instead of agonising over the motives of the person concerned and their likelihood of doing so again. It also avoids the appearance of favourable treatment being given to some users and not to others. I think it important that the Arbitration Committee provides decent oversight over administrative actions and takes action to ensure that administrators are not acting as a law onto themselves. Other avenues of dispute resolution should be pursued first - I am not advocating cases over isolated errors by administrators - but I think ArbCom needs to be more willing to accept such cases and to sanction administrators who show patterns of problematic judgment in using their tools.

Question from Carnildo (answered)

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

To be honest I am not sure - having spoken to current Arbitrators the figures they quote vary quite considerably. I also suspect that it will vary from week to week depending both the progress of matters I am involved in and what is occurring in my life outside Misplaced Pages. I already put in quite a lot of time to Misplaced Pages and most of that will no doubt end up being focused on Arbitration work were I to be appointed. On average, I suppose I would be looking to spend between 10-20hrs on ArbCom matters.

Question from WilyD (answered)

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?

   Yes. Administrators should not enjoy special status over other users. A straight forward example would be that if someone is edit warring over a page and breaches the three revert rule it should not matter whether they are an administrator, arbitrator or anything else and the decision to block should not be influenced by this. That is not to say that blocks should always be issued - blocks should be a last resort to prevent disruption - but the administrator status of a user is not in of itself a reason to treat them differently.

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?

   I believe it can be yes. An obvious example would be where an administrative account is being used disruptively (say randomly deleting pages and blocking users) in such a manner that indicates it may have been compromised, pending emergency action by a steward. I believe it could also be appropriate where admin tools are being used disruptively and there is good reason this will continue if a block is not made. If an administrator is repeatedly protecting a page, or blocking a user, it may be necessary to block them to prevent harm to the wiki. A block after they have indicated that they will no longer be taking such actions, or sometime after the event, would not be appropriate. The key question is whether the block serves to prevent disruption to the wiki.

Questions from PhilKnight (answered)

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)

   I will start with a general position. In my opinion, appearance of bias can be as damaging as actual bias. Therefore, in cases where I did not immediately think "Oooh, I should recuse from this", I would recuse were to become clear that a significant proportion of commentators regarded me not to be an appropriate person to hear a case. To give a more specific instances of cases where I would recuse: I would not hear a case where a principal party was someone who I had met socially. I would not hear a case where I had supported or opposed the actions of the user concerned, especially in an RfC relating to the conduct being complained of or a recall petition. There are no topic areas from which I believe I should recuse automatically. My answer to Stifle below has some discussions of when I might recuse due to being a bureaucrat.

   I understand from your "voter guide" that are you are particularly interested in knowing whether I would recuse in cases concerning Elonka. The answer to that question is yes. Whilst I think that people have overestimated the amount that I interact with Elonka, the meme that has arisen is such that I do not think I could act in a case that significantly concerned her without there being an appearance of bias in the eyes of many. Also, having nominated her for adminship and opposed her recall, I would be recusing on the basis I laid out above. I don't want to quite go so far as to say that I will never look into a case that can be in any way linked to her - adding her to the party list with no reason shouldn't in itself be a way to prevent me from hearing a case. Similarly, as she is involved in enforcing ArbCom sanctions, I can't really recuse from all cases about a topic area where she may have enforced one of those sanctions in the past. But if she is genuinely connected to the dispute in question, I would recuse. If there is doubt as to whether there is such a connection, I wouldn't determine the matter myself - I am happy to see if a reasonable proportion of commentators think my acting as an arbitrator would be improper. Not as much as a consensus, but say roughly a 1/3 of people who express an opinion on the subject? Does that seem reasonable to you? I am willing to adjust my position if you think that still leaves problems.

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?

   Though using "racist" to mean an advocate of the scientific theory is open to misunderstanding and probably best qualified, it does not appear to have been meant to be a personal attack. It is unclear from your outline whether the editor described as racist objected to that label. If so, then it would be best if the other editor clarified what he meant. Similarly, whilst the administrator may have misunderstood the context of the comment, he or she seems to have been acting in good faith believing there to have been a simple personal attack. Hopefully were the context explained to them - especially if the recipient of the comment had not found it insulting - they would have reversed the block. If there has been a true case of pushing the scientific racist POV, then the true problem here lies with the editor making those edits, not with the person who called them out on it (albeit bluntly). Sanctions would seem appropriate as with any account unable to adhere to NPOV.

Questions from Thatcher (answered)

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?

Whilst that approach does seem to have achieved an end to the vandalism and provided further evidence that the administrator in question is the culprit, I do not find it entirely satisfactory. The administrator seems to be being treated in a rather preferential manner to another users in the same position. My views on this would be affected by the reason for the lack of further action - is it because it is not felt that there is enough evidence to determine that the administrator is the culprit, or because the administrator is being spared the embarrassment of public denunciation? If the former, then this may be the best response but I would advocate a close eye being kept on the admin in future. If the latter, then I think further action - such as a case that may result in the desysopping of the administrator - would be required. The type of vandalism (I regard the worse possibility to be adding personal attacks to BLPs) would only be relevant if it was agreed that the administrator was indeed responsible, where it would result in my supporting harsher sanctions.

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 think (a) is problematic. The checkuser may not act totally impartially as a result of his involvement in the topic area, being more likely to conclude that those with opposing views are socks - or at least would be open to that accusation. Also, were the check to be negative, the checkuser may have obtained personal information about a person with whom they have been in conflict in relation to the article. Aside from making them person uncomfortable if they to learn of it, were that person to suffer harassment off-wiki, they might claim that the checkuser had disclosed the results of their check. It seems best conduct for a checkuser to avoid the possibility of such suspicions. Whilst (b) is better, it doesn't entirely remove this danger and I think it would be most prudent to have a second checkuser run the check. Given that this is not an emergency situation, I don't think the delay caused by making a request is unreasonable (indeed non-checkusers always have to take this approach).

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?

There is something to be said for allowing an undisclosed sockpuppet of a banned user to continue editing if their contributions are beneficial - aside from the project having the benefit of their contributions, it means the editor in question won't shift to a new account that may go undetected. However, once the sockpuppet is disclosed, it rather calls into question the point of "banning" them. If the editing by a given user is in fact acceptable, they should be unbanned. If it remains problematic, they should not be editing in open contravention of that ban. In this case,a condition of the ban being lifted should be that the attacks against Jones stop. The fact that the posts to the blog have continued make it unlikely that the problematic conduct towards Jones will stop. Aside from the fact that it is generally unacceptable to use another site to harass a contributor, the blog postings coming to an end would be good evidence of Smith's good faith and likeliness to comply with such a condition.

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?

I think public disagreement can be healthy. If the community could not agree on how to deal with the issue in question, it is natural that arbitrators will reflect a similar spectrum of views. The fact that a sanction was proposed and supported by some arbitrators will make those who also support that sanction feel less disenfranchised from the process than if it seems the possibility was never considered. ArbCom decisions which seem to appear from nowhere can give rise to feelings that they are arrived at by fiat. Where the outcome of RfAs/RfBs has been unclear, I believe that having a public discussion between bureaucrats has been beneficial, despite the fact that bureaucrats are not always unanimous as to whether a consensus for promotion exists in the discussion in question. The community will also find it easier to understand delays in a final decision being reached if they can see active discussion of proposals between arbitrators than if they are left to interpret a long period of silence from the committee.

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?

I don't think it physically possible for every arbitrator to stay on top of every matter the committee deals with. On some issues, it would be necessary to have faith in my colleagues. It is important that members of ArbCom maintain a connection to the rest of the community and are sensitive to its views and I think a complete focus on arbitration work only could result in losing sight of that.

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?

Whilst I have not made this information widely available, it is also no great secret. The threat of the information being more widely disclosed doesn't bother me unduly these days, though I would prefer it wasn't.

Questions from Newyorkbrad

Questions from Mailer Diablo

Questions from Rschen7754

Questions from Maxim

Questions from rootology

Question from Davewild (answered)

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)

I think terms need to be at least two years in length to provide reasonable continuity. I also think it would be undesirable to have two elections a year unless the election process were simplified and shortened quite considerably. I'm not overly keen on replacing half the committee every year, but that seems to be happening anyway due to the need to fill extra seats that result from resignations. Though some arbitrators have expressed the view that they two years are more than enough, others have managed three without burning out. Perhaps the current system of three years, allowing for those tired after two to resign then is a good compromise but I wouldn't be opposed to all terms being reduced to two years.

Questions from roux (answered)

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?

I generally support A.2 and oppose the other two though there are some remarks I would make. Once cannot buy the right to be incivil towards others through making quality contributions. That said, appropriate responses should be gauged in light of the context of the incivility. Using low level incivility to criticise the actions of administrators or the Arbitration Committee is not as problematic as the use of such language directed towards new or less experienced users.

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

Here I would support B.2 and oppose the other two. I think civility restrictions have been rather disastrous. They reimpose an existing obligation and can therefore be seen as sanction "for the sake of someone being sanctioned". Isolated instances of incivility should not result in blocks (assuming these are remarks that fall short of personal attacks) and patterns of incivility should be sanctioned even in the absence of special restrictions. If someone has a history of incivil behaviour, it may be difficult for them to abandon it overnight - subjecting them to longer and longer blocks whenever they slip up is likely to exacerbate the problem. The goal should be to keep a productive user, but to help them overcome the problem behaviour.

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?

It can be appropriate to issue blocks to those who are persistently incivil. Where all of an editor's contributions have been uncivil, admin may take action as they would for any other disruptive editor. However, where a productive user who frequently exhibits low level incivility is concerned, blocks should not be based on the judgment of one admin alone and it is best if a community consensus is found to support the block. Where such a pattern of behaviour persists, a user conduct RfC may be appropriate - provided that users have tried and failed to resolve the problem through other means. If there is a third party trusted by the user to counsel them on their behaviour, mentorship might assist. For instance, a user may agree to apologise for comments determined to be uncivil by their mentor(s).

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

Question from Iridescent (answered)

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)?

No. It seems to me that the circumstances where that might be legitimate are extremely remote - where a concern existed that was so strong as to make a candidate quite unacceptable and yet couldn't have been brought up during the election. Whilst I can see the logic in feeling that at least if I accept, I would be a candidate more supported than the next along, I do not agree with it. The very fact that the person who would be offered the seat will refuse it may serve to discourage Jimbo from passing over the original candidate. I am not interested in being an Arbitrator for the sake of it and I feel that being appointed without being among the top choices of the community would undermine my ability to act as an Arbitrator to the extent that I could fulfill the role effectively. One caveat to the above is that, were I to be unsuccessful in the election and later considered for an interim appointment to replace someone who resigned, I might accept such an appointment over someone with a higher % in this election if they had since acted in such a way as to have clearly lost the community's confidence.

Questions from Lar (answered)

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.

   I agree with this. Where there is a consensus that a personal is of marginal notability and they wish to their entry deleted - or there is good reason to think they would want their entry deleted were they aware of it - the article should be deleted.

   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.

   This seems a good way to implement (a) provided that the subject objects or is likely to object to the entry. I do not think it should apply where someone may want us to have an article about them - people often forget the OTRS complaints from people who have been embarrassed by friends and colleagues discovering that their entry on Misplaced Pages was deleted "because they weren't notable enough". That's becoming an increasing problem now the deletion log entry is automatically visible to someone who visits a deleted page (rather than the log having to be checked separately)

   As a general answer, I think Misplaced Pages needs to give very serious thought to the effect the information we have on people now it's become customary for the internet to be used to research individuals. Even a well sourced biography may aggregate elements of a person's life together in a unique way that they are unhappy with - and the entry is likely to become a top google hit for their name. NOINDEXing biographies might be a solution, but it has been pointed out that the GFDL would allow a mirror site to copy these articles and support themselves through advertising revenue generated from the prominence these articles might get without a Misplaced Pages competitor. Effectively, this could lose prevent us from having any control over biographies. That said, these sites might have a significantly lower ranking. One way or another the idea needs further investigation.

   I personally would support the semi protection of biographical articles given the harm that can be caused to people through them. Flagged revisions on such articles would also allow tighter control over this sort of content, which I think would be highly beneficial. Of course, as you pointed out above, ArbCom can't "legislate" on these issues, but you asked for my opinions.

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?

   Both. Consideration has to be given both to our policies about editing biographies of living people and about individual editorial decision about the notability of such people, and what material they feel is encyclopedically relevant.

   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?

   I think ArbCom approached the problem wrongly in the Footnoted quotes case. My comments on that decision at the time can be read here. Effectively they created special authority for administrators - giving anyone the right to use "any means necessary" has always been problematic - backed up by a special enforcement log. Such sanctions should in my opinion have been based on community consensus, rather than administrative discretion. In this area the role of ArbCom should be IMO to support those taking actions in respect of problematic BLPs and to impose tough sanctions on those whose misconduct causes BLP problems.

   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.

   It is not for ArbCom to implement such changes and indeed I suspect the community will reject policy implemented by ArbCom to the extent that an attempt to do so would be counterproductive. ArbCom should support those working to bring articles into compliance with the relevant community agreed policies and can propose new measures to the community, but it is not it's role to rule by fiat.

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?

   I don't think anyone foresaw that the project would grow to its current size and influence and this brings new problems. I do not think the consensus based model should be abandoned, but consideration needs to be given to areas where it is open to gaming. For example, canvassing has become increasingly problematic now that participants in discussions may be a very small sample of the community. It is important that we take steps to make sure such samples are representative by ensuring wide publicity in centralised locations and in taking action where it appears that canvassing has stilted the outcome of a discussion.

   The Arbitration Committee is in itself an example of an area where the consensus model has been, to some extent departed from. Whilst the Committee is appointed primarily based on a community vote, it's mandate is to make judgments independently based on member's individual judgment. That is not to say that the wishes of the community are to be ignored, but that ArbCom is expected to do more than just count heads on a given issue and vote accordingly. People in voting for particular candidates - I hope - recognise that they will sometimes disagree with that arbitrator during their term. ArbCom is effectively designed to step in to provide a resolution to the dispute where the consensus based model has been unsuccessful in proving a resolution.

   I think it should be borne in mind that consensus-based decision model has been something that has attracted a lot contributors and is generally empowering to our editors. Whilst I think we should be open to reform and deviation from the model, I think it also important that we are not too quick to exclude people from making decisions or reduce their input to a mere vote.

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?

   I admit to being in two minds on the matter. There would be very valuable in certain contexts, such as biographies of living people, but I worry that they take us away from what makes it appealing for casual users to contribute. People underestimate how much good content comes from IP contributors and I worry that being able to see the changes they make immediately on the page is what is attractive about editing Misplaced Pages. If changes were approved quickly this might not be too much of a problem, but I worry about a backlog of unprocessed revisions resulting. The experience of the German Misplaced Pages does seem encouraging.

   One of the problems there has been in approving this is that there have been a lot of different proposals and different ways in which this might be implemented. In a discussion at a recent meetup in Cambridge, it became obvious that three of us talking energetically about this issue had completely different models in mind. There has yet to be a single clear proposal put to the community for approval, which is clearly the next step.

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?

   I do. I think it important that people are judged by the quality of their contributions to the project, and conduct in relation to it, rather than based on their off-wiki identity if that is their wish. I also think people can have very legitimate concern about unwanted attention they may receive due to Misplaced Pages's current profile and the negative consequences this can have. Female editors are particularly likely to be subject of such unpleasant attention. That said, if someone is comfortable disclosing their identity, they should be free to do so.

   The question prompts me to comment on a recent experience I had on a train journey from London to Devon. I got talking to the train manager and, in the course of our conversation, she confided that the name on her badge was not in fact her real name but a pseudonym. Apparently her employers had advised train managers that they should adopt pseudonymous identities as a result of disgruntled passengers tracking them down and harassing them and their families. Her superiors kept a list of the pseudonyms used by each train conductor so that they would be able to identify which employee a complaint related to. The use of pseudonyms is becoming increasingly common where there is a real risk of harassment and abuse - the modern world, which provides ready means of accessing information about private individuals, has been felt to necessitate this. In the rail scenario, it seems to me that I knew all I needed to know about the lady I was addressing. I was aware of her position and how I would go about complaining were she to abuse her position. The train manager is not directly analogous to the Misplaced Pages scenario, but I think it draws attention to the fact that the use of pseudonyms is not an alien idea unique to Misplaced Pages or the internet.

   One exception I would make to the general right of editors to be anonymous is that I believe there is a duty to assist someone who has been deliberately defamed by a Misplaced Pages editor in tracking down that person. As there is no right of action against the Foundation, I think assistance should be given to those who misuse the project for malicious attacks against other people. In appropriate cases, that should include disclosing the name of the person, if known, or otherwise information about their IP usage.

   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)?

   I think any change would need to appreciate that many contributors would choose to cease contributing to the project if they could not remain pseudonymous - the cost of this to the project would need to be carefully considered if a change were seriously being proposed.

   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?

   In my opinion we should extend all courtesy to fellow editors. If someone has previously disclosed personal information they now would rather they had not, I think reasonable assistance should be given to them in reducing the incidence of that data on the project and it's profile on search engines. Redacting the information from pages seem appropriate and deletion/oversight may also be acceptable so long as material valuable to the project is not lost. It is something to considered on a case-by-case basis with kindness.

   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?

   There is little practical difference between posting "User:X is John Smith" and linking to a page that contains that same statement on another website. The reason for doing so may vary and will affect how serious an incident this is. The information could be posted in good faith to make someone aware of a potential issue (though I hope most would realise email were a better way to do this) or it may be done deliberately to draw wider attention to the information.

   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)

   I do not publish my identity on Misplaced Pages but I have made it known to quite a lot of contributors who I have gotten to know. I choose not to make it more widely available as, at the moment, I would rather references to me on Misplaced Pages used my screen name rather than my actual name. I have not yet decided whether to make my name more prominently available were I to get elected - it is not however a very closely guarded secret...

   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?

   The Foundation doesn't to my knowledge make any assertion that users will be able to remain anonymous. I think there may be some merit in warning people who seek positions that have attracted unwarranted attention in the past - such as administrators - of the potential pitfalls, but this needs to be kept in some sort of context. Whilst outing and harassment are seriously issues, they effect only a small proportion of contributors and giving the impression that "if you edit Misplaced Pages, people will try to out and harass you" would be rather a disproportionate response.

   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)

   Context is to some extent important. It may difficult to draw attention to a serious conflict of interest (e.g. someone adding negative information to the biography of a former partner or business rival) without revealing information about the person who is doing so. That is technically outing, but rather different to deliberately revealing someone's identity out of spite where it is irrelevant to edits they have made. Where the outing is vindictive, I believe an indefinite block is needed - especially if it appears such behaviour will be repeated. In other instances, a more nuanced approach based on the circumstances may be needed.

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?

   I would answer this question similarly to (f) above. It is important to keep things in proportion, but it is something that I think should be drawn to the attention of someone running for a particularly specific position.

   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.

   Real life stalking is something which the police of the country involved has a responsibility for. The Foundation does not have the resources or the mandate to assist in this area - short of hiring private detectives or bodyguards it is difficult to see what they can do. If a matter of this nature is the subject of police investigation, the Foundation should cooperate fully - including disclosing checkuser information to them (not the person allegedly being stalked) - but I think what they are able, and qualified, to do ends there. As to providing support, again this is a matter of resources.

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

   I think someone in that position should be treated with kindness and hope the community would be understanding if they reacted oddly to comments that touched on this subject. But ultimately there's only so much allowance you can make - if disruption is resulting from someone behaviour, action is going to be needed however much sympathy one has for their situation.

   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.

   This is one of the rare cases where there should a blanket policy of reverting edits of accounts identified to be operated by the stalker. Seemingly innocuous edits can be made as part of a campaign of harasssment. It may be necessary also to protect pages, be it the biography of the stalkee or their user/talk pages. Ultimately however the most effective action in these cases will be taken by law enforcement agencies. Incidents that happy on the wiki should be forwarded to them and IP data relating to the stalker should be passed on - especially where it suggests the stalker was in close proximity to their victim when they edited.

   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?

   Yes of course. For instance there is a difference between someone arguing with someone as to formatting and then tagging all fair use image uploads by their opponent for review, and checking the image uploads of someone who has shown they do not understand Misplaced Pages's fair use policy in a discussion about one of their uploads.

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?

   This can be an appropriate response in cases where edits are being used to intimidate others - see the hypothetical stalker discussed in my answer to 6. (d). Generally I think it appropriate that the edits of banned users can be reverted but that no one is obliged to do so if they believe the edit to have been beneficial. Blanket restoring such edits without ascertaining the reasons for the reverts and without considering each edit individually is problematic - users should restore only edits they are specifically willing to take responsibility for.

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?

   I don't think discussion should judged based on where it occurs. I do think it important that decisions concerning Misplaced Pages are discussed on 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?

   No. There's only so much time in the day and I've never been much of a diarist.

   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)?

   I have difficulty thinking of Misplaced Pages Review as a single entity - it has rather a wide range of posters with very different agendas. Some have raised legitimate points and drawn attention to matters that warrant further investigation. Others seems to have quite pointed personal agendas against particular people that they pursue with worrying zeal. As a forum for the outing of editors of this project, I have little time for it. There seems to be a lack of agreement among contributors there as to whether the site's aim should be to improve Misplaced Pages, or bring it crashing down. It won't surprise people to find that I have more time for the views of those who fall into the former school than the latter.

   I was vaguely aware of Wikback but never really paid it much attention. I believe people felt moderation was overly strict and were frustrated that deleted posts appeared to be lost forever. I have not given thought to the form an "ideal" outside critcism side should take - I will update this answer should I later form a view on the matter.

   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?

   I think this a matter for individual choice and think the manner in which someone participates is the more significant than the fact they choose to do so.

   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? )

   I do not think it is appropriate for an arbitrator actively participate in such a site without disclosing this fact. No, I would not consider it outing for someone to reveal the link between such accounts. I think a certain transparency is needed and that arbitrators should be accountable for comments they make if they choose to participate on such sites. I have not been active on such sites and do not intend to become so active in future.

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)?

   I think any project that has lasted as long as Misplaced Pages has faces this problem. From the point of view of ArbCom, I think it important that sanctions are decided based on the nature of the problematic behaviour being considered without undue regard to the identity of the user concerned.

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

    Red! Because I like it better than other colours?

Questions from Heimstern

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare (answered)

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

   Please see my answer to Iridescent's question above. Over 50% and among the top 7 (assuming 7 is the number of seats available when Jimbo comes to make appointments).

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

   No, I wouldn't. Arbitrators are appointed to three years terms and so there is an opportunity for the community to decide whether they should continue at that point. I think it important that arbitrators have the freedom to make decisions that they believe to be correct and not only those likely to be popular. I also believe that participation in such processes can disproportionate represent those who are unhappy with a recent action.

Questions from UninvitedCompany

Questions from TomasBat (answered)

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?)

Whilst I think it important to bear in mind the feelings of other users as human beings, ultimately the priority must be the best interests of building an encyclopedia and, on the rare occasions where one has to choose which to prioritise, it is the latter that must win out. It should be borne in mind that new users are the future of the project and, though it may not be productive to spend undue time bending over backwards to accommodate problematic editing, someone who is struggling to get the hang of the wiki now may become a contributor of excellent material in the future. We should be cautious in judging that something will not benefit the project.

Question from MBisanz (answered)

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.

Though I don't openly declare my name, it is also not a great secret. The threat of someone revealing my name does not bother me unduly these days.

Questions from Pixelface

Questions from Badger Drink

Question from BirgitteSB

Questions from Kristen Eriksen

Questions From ϢereSpielChequers

Question(s) from LtPowers (answered)

• There seems to me to be a significant portion of the community that has lost, or is beginning to lose, trust in the ability of the Arbitration Committee to fairly and effectively adjudicate cases. Do you agree with that basic assessment? If so, what do you think might be the major factor contributing to this attitude, and how might you attempt to modify ArbCom procedures and policies to regain that trust? (Note: I recognize that many of the disaffected are simply apathetic or permanently cynical on the subject, and nothing ArbCom could do would restore a trust that was never there to begin with. My question relates to those members of the community who might be persuadable if their specific objections were addressed.) Powers 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with that assessment. At some level this represents the problem that ArbCom is called upon to deal with cases where the community cannot agree on a satisfactory outcome. It is always going to be the case therefore that the outcome of a given case will displease many. Arbitrators are also not all elected with 100% support so there are also some who will be unhappy with arbitrators from day one. That alone does not explain the current problem. There have been various instances this year where the conduct of ArbCom in hearing cases - let alone in determining their outcome - has been so substandard that they have found condemnation from the vast majority of the community. For example, holding cases in secret and releasing judgments before the person concerned has heard the case against them, let alone had an opportunity to put their side of it, is a basic breach of natural justice.

I outlined a number of areas where I thought improvement particularly needed in my candidate statement, and expanded upon them further here. I believe that increased transparency, clearer decisions and a more thoughtful application of appropriate sanctions are the best way to try and regain community confidence. I recognise however that this is likely to be an uphill struggle...

Another issue of growing dissatisfaction with the community is a perceived unwillingness or inability on the part of the Arbitration Committee to regulate those with oversight and checkuser privileges, especially where the alleged misuse of those tools falls outside the privacy policy. I think it important that ArbCom be seen to be taking an active role in supervising those to whom it allocates these tools and in regularly reviewing whether these appointments remain appropriate. Some users received these rights many years ago and their standing in the community may have changed considerably since. Where it is shown that someone has repeatedly strayed outside the relevant policies after being warned, I think it is appropriate to revoke such access. I also think confidence in this area would be strengthened by the knowledge that the holders of these rights were subject to periodic review and those making poor use of the access would have it removed in favour of competent candidates likely to be more successful in the role.

Individual questions

Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

Questions from Will Beback (answered)

This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?

I have used WJBaway, an account for editing from less secure terminals, and WJBtest, a test account. Both are pretty transparent I think :). I also operate RedirectCleanupBot, a bot account with admin rights approved to delete broken redirects (approval is here, and the Bot's RfA is here) and Mediation Committee, an account not used for editing but to allow people to contact the Mediation Committee via Special:Emailuser/Mediation Committee.

2. Is it appropriate for editors to create joke accounts, role accounts, "personality" accounts, etc., to have fun or to make a point? Should socks be allowed to edit policies, engage in RfCs and ArbCom cases, or seek positions of trust in the community? Or should undisclosed alternate accounts be used only with care in limited circumstances?

I am not personally very keen on the idea but I do not read our current policies as prohibiting it. Unsurprisingly there seems to be mixed views on the benefits of such accounts. If the community objects to them, we can either ban them altogether or a user conduct RfC could be started regarding the use of a particular account by a particular person. Whilst such accounts can sometimes be used to make a comment reinforcing a particular point, I think some standards of decorum need to be met. For instance, I did not feel it appropriate when this year a joke account was used to start a Request for Arbitration that resulted in the desysopping of an administrator. I also would not, as a bureaucrat, have transfered admin rights to such an account without seeking express approval from the community. Disclosing such accounts is definitely best practice and at the very least good faith inquiries into the identity of the master account should be responded to.

3. Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?

I am hopeful that the plans to streamline WP:SSP and WP:RFCU into one process will be beneficial in this area - in particular given that suspected sockpuppet reports are a neglected area. That said, there is little substitute for good eyes looking out for suspect behaviour and I worry that low number of new administrators being created is leading to this sort of work becoming increasingly neglected. Another perennial problem are users blocked for such behaviour who return to the project once checkuser data regarding prior incarnations has become stale. I think there needs to be greater recognition that where an account reappears which demonstrates extremely similar problematic behaviour to a past blocked user, it is not necessary to prove they are the same person for action to be taken.

Questions from FT2

Question from Al tally (answered)

Easy-peasy question: if elected will you be resigning from your MedCom activities? Al Tally 16:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the two committees (ArbCom and MedCom) were created it has always been held that it is a conflict of interest for someone to serve on both at the same time. Besides, I simply wouldn't have time to do both well. I will therefore be resigning from the Mediation Committee were I to be elected to the Arbitration Committee, yes.

Question from User:The Land Surveyor (answered)

Continuing the 'moral maze' theme begun by Thatcher and the other candidates.

User:Smith, who has edited prolifically since the beginning of the project and is generally well-respected as an editor, makes an apparently serious allegation against a member of the Arbitration committee (Jones), regarding edits that (according to Smith) are highly slanted, and are of such a nature as are likely to bring the project into disrepute. You ask Smith for diffs to these supposedly slanted edits, which he sends. You look at the diffs, which (to you) seem of a relatively harmless nature and unlikely to offend. However, the next day Smith contacts you by email and claims that the edits in question have been 'oversighted' i.e. deleted from the Misplaced Pages server. When you look again, indeed the edit indeed seem to have disappeared. What do you do?

(A) Ignore the whole issue. The deletion of evidence you found utterly unpersuasive does not concern you much and others are better placed to investigate the matter.

(B) Take the matter up with Jimbo and other checkusers, to find out why the edits were 'oversighted'.

(C) Other (please specify).

Before dealing with your hypothetical scenario, I will comment on the incident that inspired you to ask it. I realise that at the time it was the single most important thing that concerned you. With respect, it wasn't for me. I have to prioritise how I spend my time like anyone else and had plenty of other things - both connected to Misplaced Pages and not - occupying my time. For me to look into a possibly inappropriate use of oversight was not to my mind a good use of my time. Without the right, I was not in a position to even confirm that an edit had indeed been oversighted. I could only speculate as to this. I did not have a particularly clear recollection of the edit in question. I recalled that I had not thought it to be persuasive evidence of the misconduct you then were alleging and did not remember thinking that it contained material that should oversighted. However, sometimes the privacy implications of a post are not apparent to someone without an additional piece of information. In my opinion, there were others in a far better position to look into the matter. I had contacted Jimbo Wales and he had indicated a willingness to look into what you were alleging. I had made him aware that an edit which you had previously cited no longer appeared to be in the database and therefore appeared to have been oversighted. Given he was ultimately responsible for appointments to ArbCom, he seemed the best person to hear you out. It was your choice not to avail yourself of that opportunity. Each of the people who had oversight at the time (or have obtained it since) have been far better placed to look into the matter than me, as they would have been in a position to consult the oversight log. You had yourself advised me not to involve myself further in the matter in a email sent at 11:49 on Saturday 8 December 2007.

Now the above being said, I would approach the matter differently were I an arbitrator for two reasons. Firstly, because as an arbitrator I would have a duty to look into possible misuse of access such as oversight. And secondly, because I would have that right myself, I would be able to access the log. The person who oversighted the edit would be more able to explain the situation to me, rather than feeling constrained by the privacy policy in discussing it with someone not trusted with that right.

So to turn to your hypothetical question. Were this to happen now, I would recommend that they do (B) - assuming you meant other oversighters not other checkusers - as they are better placed to explain their concerns. Once I knew they were in touch with someone able to investigate the matter for them, I would leave it in that person's hands. In particular, I tend to assume that edits are oversighted for good cause and don't routinely second guess such actions. Were I an arbitrator, I would opt for (C). I would review the oversighting of the edit myself. Were I to have concerns about the use of oversight in that case - taking into account the nature of the material deleted and the reason given in the summary - I would take them up with the person who performed the oversight. Were I to remain unsatisfied, I would raise the matter with other arbitrators for further investigation. If it were agreed that the oversight had been improper, I would then contact a developer to have the edit restored and propose action be taken against the oversighter - up to removing the access were there to have been previous problematic instances or an unwillingness to agree that the action was wrong and agreement not to oversight similar edits in future.

Question from M.K. (answered)

• How active, you think, Arbiters should be in various Arbitration cases? Should they actively discuss/propose things on workshops'/evidences' pages, or should they concentrate their activity on proposed decision stage? M.K. (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that should depend on how much time they have had to commit to the case. If they are intending to write the proposed decision, I think participation in the workshop is a good idea to get a feel for community opinion. Proposing key elements of the decision on the workshop page first is a good way to get feedback and fine tune them. I don't like the idea of arbitrators participating in the evidence page, as it may give the impression that they are prosecuting parties about who they provide evidence of misconduct rather than evaluating the evidence neutrally. Presenting less contentious evidence, such as a timeline of actions, seems less problematic. If an arbitrator feels evidence is lacking, I think it best for them to request further information from the parties. Whilst if they can I think it a good idea for all arbitrators to be active in the case from an early stage, those who are deciding only whether to support an existing proposed decision should read the workshop and evidence pages - and feedback on the proposed decision talkpage - but need not necessarily comment unless they have further questions.

Question from harej

Question from Rspeer

Question from Jehochman (answered)

How do you feel about bureaucrats serving as arbitrators? Would this represent an unhealthy concentration of power in the hands of a few? Jehochman 15:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that bureaucrats can bring a valuable perspective to ArbCom. As users involved in evaluating consensus at RfAs, they have a good impression of the standards the community expects of administrators which can be applied when reviewing alleged administrator misconduct. There can be a few practical advantages of active bureaucrats being on ArbCom, such as where a user under sanctions wishes to be renamed. By convention, ArbCom is asked to approve such renames but emails to the list from outside go unanswered for a while. Having a bureaucrat on ArbCom able to raise the issue and try and get prompt feedback can allow such matters to be processed more efficiently. In general though, there is little direct overlap between the two roles. I think it is wrong to say that bureaucrats have "power" - their functions are based on interpreting community consensus. In the rare cases where the is some interact between the functions of the two, it is clear that ArbCom has the final authority in that it can issue remedies preventing someone from running for RfA or being renamed without its permission. A bureaucrat on ArbCom have any reason to want to be act differently from one who its not.

See my answer to Stifle's question below for comments on potential conflicts of interest between being a bureaucrat and arbitrator.

Questions from Ncmvocalist

Questions from Al tally

Questions from Malinaccier (answered)

1. What powers do you believe Arbcom members should have that they do not already?

Thank you and good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

None. And I am strongly of the opinion that any expansion of the role of ArbCom should be based on community consensus and consultation.

Question from Stifle (answered)

What conflicts, if any, do you envisage arising between your bureaucrat duties and your ArbCom duties, if elected? Stifle (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst bureaucrats promote administrators they do so as an interpretation of consensus, not their own assessment of a candidate. There is no reason therefore that the bureaucrat who promoted a given admin should be seen as more likely to be lenient (or strict for that matter) should that admin later be accused of misconduct. An exception to this might be where the promotion was a very close call and had been contested, leading to a belief that there had been partiality in the decision. That could result in a belief that the bureaucrat was biased and if reasonably widely held, a recusal would be wise.

A possible scenario that cause conflict is where someone desysopped by ArbCom runs at RfA and is opposed by many ArbCom members. As this give rises to the impression that ArbCom as a body opposes the candidacy, I think it would be appropriate for bureaucrats who were members of ArbCom to recuse from involvement in determining the outcome of that RfA. Were an individual bureaucrat action of mine - or an action of another bureaucrat that I had supported - to be the subject of a request for arbitration, I would of course recuse as an arbitrator from the case in question.

I do not think there is any general conflict of interest between the two positions, but the scenarios above represent possible areas where problems might arise. If a situation came up which I had not envisaged above where it was suggested to me the two roles were in conflict, I would take appropriate action to recuse. Whilst I wouldn't do so at the request of one editor alone, I think apparent bias an important problem and so would recuse if several uninvolved members of the community expressed a concern (rather than only where I personally felt the concern legitimate).

Questions by Pohta ce-am pohtit

Question from Ling.Nut (answered)

• I'm asking this of everyone; it didn't occur to me to ask 'til after the "general questions" were closed. This also isn't a vanity question intended to pump my essay. I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
• Would you please read the (very, very, very short) essay at User:Ling.Nut/3IAR and indicate how much you agree or disagree with its points? If it helps at all, the essay was originally written as a response to an admin who insisted that I was not permitted to make my talk page a redirect to my user page. He did so even though there is (or was at that time?) no rule or guideline to this effect, and far more importantly, even though my actions were harming neither the encyclopedia nor any of its editors.
• Thank you for your time. Ling.Nut 16:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your essay, no. It depends a little on what you mean by harm, I am interpreting it broadly - to include hurt feelings and general distress - rather than just physical harm. I do not think anyone has an obligation to do things on Misplaced Pages as everyone is a volunteer beyond their own sense of morality. Do people have obligations to rescue drowning people when they see them? A moral one, maybe, but not in most countries a legal one. We should not allow harm to fall on others through carelessness - e.g. making a statement that is untrue through poor research - but I do not think there the project should impose obligation on people to come to the aid of others. As to the second law, I think there are cases where the need for neutrality and verifiability - especial in relation to biographies of living people - would justify someone undertaking a course of action that might upset (but not physically harm) another contributor to ensure that the content is appropriate for Misplaced Pages. As a strict choice, I think the goals of the encyclopedia are more important than the feelings of individual editors, though of course alienating contributors will can of itself be detrimental to those goals. I would not qualify law three in the way you do as you will gather from my response above. I would constrain that free will with regards to violating neutrality or verifiability but not impose an obligation to act to prevent harm. I believe there are other goals beyond the rules which you set out - such as allowing for effective communication between editors and other similar functions which are beneficial to the goals of the project overall.

In social groups and communities, not all rules are necessarily written down and some simply result from regular practice based on common sense. This applies to some extent to Misplaced Pages. Whilst your redirection of your talkpage to your userpage may not have been very harmful, it would have had some negative consequences. I haven't been able to find the incident you refer to, so I have to speculate a little as to what was involved. If you simply intended to receive communication to your userpage rather than your talkpage, this wouldn't seem very problematic though might be a source of confusion to new users trying to understand how such pages usually work. If you weren't inviting messages on your user page, then the redirection served as a hindrance for those seeking to leave you messages. Were you inactive this would be not issue at all (and such redirections are not uncommon) but if you were actively editing the project, I think it is problematic not to make your talkpage available for other users.

Thanks for your answer. I was trying to take a wikibreak, for important reasons. And I still think that admins patently overstep their bounds when they drag people to ANI in order to enforce unwritten rules. If is it important enough for ANI, it should be codified. Thanks Ling.Nut 11:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If you were going to on a break, I am surprised that anyone objected to you redirecting your talkpage.

• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee Elections 2008