Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:09, 16 November 2006

Question from Ragesoss

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

Thanks, good first question for me on a subject near an dear to my heart. I've been following the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience case closely and made comments. On Misplaced Pages the term neutral point of view has an important specific meaning that is based on official policy. NPOV says that all significant point of view must be presented fairly and without bias if they have been published by a reliable source. SPOV is slightly different but is compatible with Misplaced Pages NPOV. SPOV reports the consensus of the scientific community. It does not represent all significant points of view related to a topic. This passage from Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience explains how SPOV is used on Misplaced Pages science and pseudoscience topics, "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories."

The conflict occurs if an article asserts that a scientific view is correct because NPOV requires it "not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one." Instead Misplaced Pages articles allow each reader to form their own opinions about the truth of the ideas presented. (Let me know if you want any more detail.) FloNight 23:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from maclean

1. Do you have dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee, Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal, Misplaced Pages:Third opinion, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, or Misplaced Pages:Association of Members' Advocates? In your candidate statement you noted that you are an Arbitration Committee Clerk, what do you do there? Why are you an Arbitration Committee Clerk?

   • I enjoy mediating disputes on Wikipeia and have some successful outcomes though not in any of the official areas you mention. I subscribe to the it is darkest before dawn theory and try to catch users that are so upset and frustrated that they are willing to look for help getting out of the messy situation. (I'd prefer not to provide diff publicly because it might embarrass some users. Can provide privately on request.) Professionally, I have training on how to deal with people during times that they are upset and I find the same skills useful to calm down users and get them to work towards resolving their differences.
   • The officail description of the duties of Arbitration Committee Clerk is found here. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerks Basically it is clerical work. Opening and closing cases, and removing Requests for arbitration that are rejected are the most common tasks. We also explain the process to parties and other interested users, and facilitate communication between the parties and the Arbitrator Committee as needed. We do not make decisions about cases. FloNight 00:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Why are you an Arbitration Committee Clerk?

   • In August the most active Arbitration Clerk at the time went on holiday and there was a shortage of clerks available to perform the duties. I noticed and volunteered to help out. I enjoyed the work and stayed on after he returned. FloNight 00:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Will you continue as a clerk if not successful with the Arbitration Committee?

   • Yes. I enjoy the arbitration clerk tasks and plan to continue if not elected. FloNight 23:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo

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

• My experience with the Misplaced Pages:Request for arbitration (as a party in an arbitration case and as a participant on Workshop pages) is positive largely due to the high caliber Wikipedians that we have serving on the Arbitration Committee. I have confidence that the committee is looking out for the overall interest of the community. I believe that the community and Jimbo have made wise choices in the past.

• The larger the community becomes, the harder it will be for users to know the candidates well enough to vote on them based on their own first hand experience. For this reason I think that it is important for this pre-election and the election phase to be as interactive as possible with users asking questions and candidates responding to provide this beneficial information.

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

• I've been helping baby along a new policy Misplaced Pages:Community sanction. It is likely not being used to its full potential yet being very new and unknown to my users. I think that it is going to be beneficial to the Community by letting the community deal with many of the more straightforward cases that are in front of AC now. This should help reduce the load on AC and speed up the process for the cases still needing the involvement of the Committee.

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

• Yes, I have read the policies and have made requests for both in the past. I've been lucky and never had a problem finding someone to do them for me. I know over the course of the past year some users had problems getting quick results to their requests. If I am elected I would be happy to make myself available to perform these tasks as needed and would likely request privileges for them.

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

• For the Arbitration Committee to be useful to the community it must have it's respect and confidence. The presence of these three characteristics; integrity, accountability, and transparency, help give ArbCom confidence in the eyes of the community.

• Integrity for purposes of RFAr means that an Arbitrator will deal with users in a honest manner, making a sincere effort to listen to user evidence and make a decision based on the facts presented in the case.

• By custom and tradition as well as policy, the Arbitration Committee is accountable to the community, Jimbo, and Wikimedia Foundation board.

• Transparency is specifically addressed in the Arbitration Committee policy. Per policy I want to note that I do have one additional user account that I have never used. I will reveal the name of the user account per policy if elected. I agree that most evidence should be taken in public with the exception of information that may cause harm to individuals or the Misplaced Pages. Deliberations are often held privately, but Arbitrators will make detailed rationale for all their decisions related to cases public. FloNight 17:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

• All of the items you mention can be harmless fun or problems depending on the situation. I believe in a "whistle while you work" environment. FYI, I'm in the category Rouge admins, a ongoing gag. These things are a great way to cope with Wikistress. --FloNight 03:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Giano

Members of the current Arbcom were recently openly discussing people involved in an Arbcom case on the IRC Admin's channel. What are your views on that, and on Arbcom confidentiality. Giano 17:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• The original purpose of the IRC Admins channel was to provide a place for Jimbo and Danny to quickly find clueful users to help with sensitive content issues that could not be easily discussed on Site. I think this remains a main focus of the IRC channel though it can get social at times since a large number of Wikipedians are gathered there. Arbitration member that use the channel need to take care and not reveal any confidential information. --FloNight 03:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• What subjects do you, and would you, see fit to discuss on the IRC Admin channel? Why would you not discuss them On-Wiki? Giano 18:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Badbilltucker

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

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

• I will be married for 30 years this June so I know how to stick with something!! I can not think of any reason that I will resign from the position. My real life experience dealing with difficult people in difficult situations prepares me for the negative feedback that is part of the ArbCom's job.

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

• The Arbitration Committee has great latitude in researching the cases. Depending on the exact situation, I would find a resource either on or off the committee to help me understand the evidence. Using reliable sources is key in this situation. Then I would make sure the Finding of facts in the case are factually correct per onsite diffs and reliable sources in the field of study. FloNight 03:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Newyorkbrad

Welcome to the hustings! Newyorkbrad 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

   A main purpose of arbitration is to find remedies for disruptive behavior that can not be settled by the community making pace an important factor. The period of time that the Arbitration Committee takes to clear cases is a measurable quality standard. Ideally ArbCom's policy and procedures will allow for evidence to be fully presented and cases thoroughly researched by arbitrators in a time frame that satisfies the need of the community. The speed of cases can be addressed in several ways:

   a) By encouraging the use of more community sanctions, a practice I support, have used and helped promote to official policy.

   b) Amending procedure for accepting new arbitration requests. This recently changed from 4 accept votes to 4 net accept votes and needs to be evaluated to see if it is achieving desired effect.

   c) Better assisting parties and other interested users in providing evidence.

   d) More arbitrators researching cases and writing proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. This is one place where I can make a difference since I have plenty of free time to assist this way.

2. If elected, do you anticipate participating in the actual drafting of the ArbCom decisions? If so, do you have any writing experience that would be directly relevant to this task?

   Yes, I plan to help research and write the proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. In terms of Misplaced Pages RFArb, I have experience writing proposals on the workshop pages of arbitration cases. In several arbitration cases the proposals I made on workshop pages or similar ones have been used by the Arbitrator writing the case proposals. Professionally I have experience making assessments, implementing a plan of action, and evaluating the results for individuals and both small and large groups. Additionally, I have researched problems, and then written policies and protocols. These skills are similar to the skills needed to perform the tasks of ArbCom.

3. Do you believe your experience as a Clerk for ArbCom over the past couple of months has given you insight into how the Committee works, what is good about the procedures and what might be improved in some way?

   Yes, I think helping out as an Arbitration Committee Clerk has given me more insight into the working of ArbCom. Overall the policies and process are sound. Several particular issues that could be better addressed come to mind. One issue, discussed in the past and still needs further discussion, deals with better delineation of which arbitrators are going to research and vote on a particular case. There are times when acting as Clerk I felt that the outcome would be different if more Arbitrators participated in a case. This happened when several Arbitrators were away or inactive and others were recused. The unevenness of this result needs to be handled better I think. The other issue deals with voting on motions and clarifications discussions in prior RFArb. I think that ArbCom needs a better way of communicating to the prior parties and interested others that these issues are being discussed. There is no system in place to notify them now. This sometimes causes the discussion to be incomplete or last longer than might happen otherwise, and the motions votes to not be as well understood and supported by as broad a group in the community as possible. FloNight 22:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from xaosflux

1. As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. (Question from — xaosflux 20:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The main issue here relates to making sure that these functions are the available as needed while limiting their use to a select group of users that can be trusted with the responsibility. The growth in size of Misplaced Pages-en will likely result in the need for more users with these permissions. An important matter related to this concerns whether these privileges should be concentrated within the same small group of trusted users that are current or former members of ArbCom and/or Bureaucrats, or should these privileges be spread more diffusely among the community. Also, should these be permanent or removed and given to other users if not used regularly? Currently, I support giving the privileges to current and former Arbitrators and current Bureaucrats that have the interest and time to perform the duties after discussion by ArbCom. Other experienced users should also be able to make an argument for the privileges. In particular, more editors very active as Mediators on Mediation Committee may benefit since they frequently are the first to see problems. Another groups might be a select group of editors that are active in answering OTRS queries and Office related matters. I think that users with the privileges should be encouraged to voluntarily return them if they are not being used with any frequency. If the circumstances change and the need arises in the future for there use, they can easily be returned. FloNight 23:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from AnonEMouse

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

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

1. A current Arbcom case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?

   I have been following the case you mention and the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability case which also concerns this issue and I have given the question quite a bit of thought before your question. This is my take on the situation:

   • Currently the Arbitration Committee endorses policy in several ways. By using a new policy or guideline, the Arbitration committee puts their stamp of approval on it. A good example of this is Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Initially there were some questions about this policy (it actually started as a guideline) by some members of the community. I think that the Committee's frequent use of the policy helped validate it in the community and now it is widely accepted and cited.
   • Additionally, I think that Jimbo and the Misplaced Pages community have given the Arbitration Committee wide latitude to settle disputes that are damaging to Misplaced Pages. In theory this means that any type of dispute can be addressed by the Committee in order to bring resolution to a situation that must have resolution. By this I mean that the level of disturbance needs to be weighed and action taken if warranted. If not acting on a dispute allows a problem to fester and cause greater damage then the Arbitration Committee should act. In these two particular cases so far I have not seen evidence that the Committee needs to intervene in a way that will in fact make policy. In the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy cases I am not convinced that the finding of facts that describe the dispute need to establish new policy. Instead they can remain focused on the way that users interact to form policy, leaving the final decision up to others. FloNight 23:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?

   Yes, Arbitration Committee should only accept cases that can not be settled by the community. Therefore they have the authority to handle any case they accept as needed to end the disruption. As I stated above, I think that Jimbo and the Misplaced Pages community have given the Arbitration Committee wide latitude to settle disputes that are damaging to Misplaced Pages. In theory this means that any type of dispute can be addressed by the Committee in order to bring resolution to a situation that must have resolution. If a case needs this type of intervention by ArbCom, than they have the authority. But, the Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano did not need this type of intervention and the dispute was resolved without it. So far ArbCom has been conservative about wading into content issues and issues involving making policy. If I am elected to Arbitration Committee I will continue this trend and only go there if absolutely necessary. FloNight 01:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Misplaced Pages. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Misplaced Pages. Do you agree or not, and why?
4. If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Misplaced Pages - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.

   • (Answer to 3 & 4 together) Absolutely agree that a user's service to Misplaced Pages is important tool to use when evaluating user conduct and making determinations about their future as participants on the project. This concept is fundamental to every case, really. ArbCom weighs the harm that a user is doing to Misplaced Pages to the benefit that they are bringing to the project. The Arbitration committee does not act unless other users make a Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. It must also show that attempts at resolving the dispute in another venue have been tried and failed or that they are not possible due to the nature of the dispute. This system artificially sets up the altercation as a conflict between users, when in reality often it is best viewed as an editor engaged in a dispute with the community's policy.
   • If an Arbitration case is viewed as I stated above, than there is no need to pit different groups of users against each other, and in fact doing so would cause more harm than good by increasing the tension between the different types of editors that you identified. FloNight 02:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

5. While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)
6. It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?

   • In the broadest sense I think that it can be acceptable either way; currently I think that is right for this Arbitration Committee because it is functioning all right with this configuration, but in the future it will be wrong for the next Arbitration Committee since so many candidates have expressed an opinion that they want to research and write decisions. As I stated in Questions from Newyorkbrad, if elected I plan to research and write decisions to help the Arbitration Committee be more effective. FloNight 03:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

7. For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom?

   I think it is a decision for the community to make if a particular user is qualified to help the community by serving on ArbCom. There are several experienced, non-admins that I know and would vote for if they run. I do not see it as a group that needs representation as much as different individuals bring different skills and knowledge that would be beneficial to the position. The few issues, such as not being able to see deleted edits, are easily overcome. I see the point about them not having the communities trust as less import because they would have it if they were elected. :-) FloNight 03:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

AnonEMouse 14:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from SB_Johnny

A good wikifriend of mine strongly believes in you, so I'd like to ask a few more generalized questions. They're admittedly softballs, but your answers would be enlightening (at least to me):

1. Obviously the very existence of arbcom is an archetype token of a "necessary evil", and taking an issue to arbcom must always be considered only as a last resort. In your opinion, are there any weak links in the dispute resolution process that could be strengthened in order to make arbitration requests even rarer than they already are?

   Mediation is a part of the dispute resolution process that needs more support. Often, I fear it is something that is hurried past on the way to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. It is misunderstood about what Arbitration can accomplish compared to Mediation. Each has a place and needs to be used appropriately. User conduct Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment often end by identifying problems but no method to implement a good solution. Hopefully the new Misplaced Pages:Community sanction will help with this problem. FloNight 02:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Assuming that any weak links you see in the dispute resolution process might be around for a while, do you think the committee could do a better job of following up on refused requests, to make sure that they're discussed in a more appropriate forum?

   You are correct that currently a case gets no follow up once a case is rejected as a content dispute or because other methods of dispute have not been tried. Having a group of editors follow up on these rejected cases might be helpful in some situations. FloNight 02:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

3. As an arbitrator, you'll need to be willing to first be understanding without necessarily forgiving, and then later to forgive without forgetting. This can be a difficult path to walk, since personal feelings will almost certainly be roused in one direction or the other. How would you approach this on a good day (i.e., in a way you'll take pride in after the fact), and will you consider recusing yourself on a bad day?

   I think that I will be able to handle all that goes with the duties of the Arbitration Committee. I have experience working in high stress jobs and know how to deal with difficult people and difficult situations. I will use my best judgment and recuse from cases when I feel that I can not judge the case fairly. FloNight 02:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

--SB_Johnny||_books 15:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from Dakota

If elected to the Arbitration Committee will you continue active editing? Will you not lose interest in contributing to articles. Will you be available to any users who seek your help or advice.

--Dakota 05:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Yes! and Yes! If I need to cut back on a current activity to make more time for ArbCom, I will cut back on admin duties. I think that I am easily approachable and will make myself available to answer questions about ArbCom during and after a case. Suggestions from users are welcome. I'm used to being evaluated frequently in my previous employment. FloNight 01:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Bhadani

I wish you all the best! I have few doubts, and would request you to kindly clarify the same.

• You opposed a particular RfA .:And, thereafter you changed this to neutral: &

While I respect rights of all editors to have opinions on RfAs, in the context of your candidature for the ArbCom, I have a pointed query: do you feel that members of the ArbCom have to form opinions based only on the evidences (or the so called evidences) furnished without applying their minds and without taking into account the totality of the contributions of an editor? Further, how did you conclude that this particular user did not assume good faith? What made you feel and perhaps voice opinion obliquely in an assertive tone that that user’s good faith was suspect vis-à-vis your own good faith while recording your advice to that user? Do you feel that whosoever raises and uses WP:AGF first during talks and discussion acquires a lien on the good faith? Or, does it depends on the hierarchy where the user may be placed: an IP the least, a registered user a bit better, an administrator still better, and an ArbCom member better than an administrator and so on?

• Do you believe that the ArbCom members should stop contributing to the main spaces and confine their activities to the resolution of disputes only? In case, your answer is No, please enlighten me on how would you continue to enrich the main space after being elected as a member of the ArbCom? Although you have explained your position by telling Yes, Yes, Yes to a similar query above, I am requesting you to kindly elaborate the exact steps that you propose to take to continue to be active as a contributor to the main space. Please also share with the community the names of the ArbCom members who are most active and who are least active in main spaces in your assessment. I request you to please share the names to understand the level which you feel are acceptable. I do understand that the acceptable level would differ from editor to editor.

• Do you believe that to resolve disputes relating to contents, domain knowledge of the contents are secondary? Thus, for example, a dispute relating to the contents of a particular page may be resolved by reference to the materials available within English Misplaced Pages? Or, the ArbCom members are expected to make themselves familiar with the issues involved by actually making references to the citations and references available within and outside English Misplaced Pages?

Regards. --Bhadani 13:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)