Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 00:03, 22 November 2006 (→Question from []: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thank you for your questions. Please be aware that I try to respond quickly with a first impression, and may well subsequently amend or expand that (it's a wiki, after all - we show our working!). If an answer is incomplete, unsatisfactory, misses the point or whatever, do feel free to follow up. I welcome specific examples for discussion. Guy

Question from Crzrussian

1. As a non-teenager with a family and a full time job, do you expect to find sufficient time to discharge your A/C duties properly? What kind of a time commitment do you think the job will take? - crz crztalk 12:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

   I won't have a problem putting in the hours, but I suspect that I would spend less time doing admin stuff. It's either drop that or spend less time on articles, and I do little enough of that as is. Of course it's possible that some family commitments will come up (see also User:Phaedriel) but in the end as you can probably see from Special:Contributions/JzG, I am rarely inactive for long.

Questions from Mailer Diablo

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

• The MONGO/ED incident, among many, illustrates why it is vital that ArbCom has the unreserved trust of the community. In the end, ArbCom makes the closest we get to binding rulings, and when ArbCom says "no, really, trust me on this" people really do have to be able to trust them. That means voting with care and thought, and it means making sure that as many people as possible do come and vote.

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?

• Fantastic question! Policy? we have very few, and I wouldn't want to remove any. I see no pressing reason to add one, either. Let me think about this one, the only thing I really hate right now is RFA (it rejects too many good people) but I would not want to make a unilateral change there either!

• In response to a question on my Talk, I think that Stephen B Streater (talk · contribs) was rejected as an admin due to an entirely irrelevant dispute over something he was doing out of a genuine desire to help the project (and those who, like me, find the OGG format tiresome). Stephen is mature, intelligent, calm, civil, conciliatory and knowledgeable, yet we rejected him. We also rejected Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs) for reasons which while reasonable enough were connected with an episode which was a low point for the community, and bygones should be allowed to be bygones. I'm sure George will pass next time, but really, given his self-evident commitment to the project and his long history of good faith contributions, we really ought to apply the "no big deal" clause and a dash of good faith. I also feel (more controversially, apparently) that Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs) should be given the mop. He is a tireless worker, unlikely to make rogue deletions, active at WP:DRV so could do with being able to see deleted revisions, and he has a sound working knowledge of policy and guidelines. I know his inclusion standards are well below community norms - mine are well above and I was sysopped. In the end, where's the risk? If he wheel-wars or abuses the tools, they can be revoked, but I really don't see much danger of that. Anyway, these are three users I know from around the place (I nominated Stephen and Jeff) and who failed RfA. "This should be no big deal". Hell, maybe I'm wrong. I note that on my Talk, Xolox makes the point that both Jeff and Kappa were, as far as can be seen, marked down as a result of their holding perfectly legitimate Wiki-philosophical views. We (the admins) are not supposed to be a cabal. Guy 20:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I have thought about it. I would neither remove nor introduce a policy, but I would change WP:OFFICE to include a proper mechanism for requesting updates and clarification. For example, Pacific Western University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is office-protected. The protected version is excessively sympathetic, categorising it as an American university. It is an unaccredited institution, and this is verifiable from impeccable sources. Per precedent, other articles on unaccredited institutions have {{unaccredited}} substed, for the avoidance of misunderstanding. In the case of Gregory Lauder-Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), lack of any feedback from foundation led to many weeks of frustration and argument (to say nothing of trolling). The number of office protected pages is small enough that it is not outrageous to expect some kind of clarification (e.g. "protected following a complaint") and some reasonably timely feedback on requests for changes, as per requests for changes to protected pages. The lack of any mechanism makes it very frustrating dealing with these articles. Maybe it's just me; of the five protected articles, one is an unambiguous copyvio on Meta and three others are on my watchlist following previous attempts to prevent POV or WP:BLP violations. Two are as I left them, the third is Pacific western , and I can quite see why some of the content I did not remove was WP:OFFICEd. I have no problem with WP:OFFICE actions (I consider it absolutely necessary that there is some mechanism of this type which is not overridden, in cases of pressing legal concern), but I think the process is rough around the edges. I hope that is a proper answer to your question. I would not want to remove WP:NPOV], WP:V, or any f the other core policies, because it is these which distinguish us from the other sites on the net: verifiability and neutral point of view is our USP.

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?

• Yup. I am pretty active, give or take RL, and certainly inclined to keep backlogs down. I don't much care for the last changes to process at RFCU, though I can see why they were made, but I do view RFCU and especially OTRS as setting a standard well above the run of the mill editorial or sysop standards of exposure, our reputation can be seriously damaged by misuse of them, so privacy concerns to the fore.

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

• It means saying, out in the open, what you have done and (consistent with reasonable respect for privacy) why; it means being prepared to back down and apologise if you are wrong; and it means drawing a clear distinction between editorial judgement exercised as such, and what is said as an arb. I have found one occasion on which an admin decision was challenged (re contentious edits to Lance Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Socafan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I learned some from that. I also learned a lot from the incidents surrounding Gregory Lauder-Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - see also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gregory Lauder-Frost (fourth nomination). Integrity is an odd thing, really; I have always been open about who I am and that has led to some fairly vicious personal attacks, but my personal ethics require me to be open in that way. No doubt one day it will really bite me on the arse. Integrity to me means that you behave as if you were face to face with someone, not interacting through a series of computers, and it also means that you sometimes have to say what's supported by the balance of evidence not what's popular. I will probably refine that a bit, when I have found an example that is lurking in the back of my mind somewhere.

5. Are "honourable" long-standing contributions and having the role of being sysop mitigating factors when dealing with chronic cases of incivility and other forms of policy violations?

• The problem here for me is the word chronic. It implies long-standing endemic incivility which is not corrected by gentle admonition. Obviously if someone has a long history of good contributions to the encyclopaedia, the community will generally view it as worthwhile to try to fix or live with a behavioural problem (I am thinking here again of the SPUI case, where a long-standing editor's dogmatism finally became impossible to work with and there was no alternative but to go to arbitration - had it been a newer editor we'd likely have simply blocked them). I think the mitigation will be seen in the remedes and enforcements rather than the findings of fact, though, so a long-time contributor might get a one-revert parole where a less established editor might get a topical ban and someone with no real history of contributions to the encyclopaedia might simply be banned.

5a. 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?

• Humour is a necessary safety valve. Of course we should have humour - you ask a rouge admin this? :o) - but we should remember always that the butt of the joke might not think it quite so funny. April Fools' Day is great, a lot of thought has gone into this. But I am less convinced about the articles which are made up of lists of jokes, especially lists of offensive jokes. There is a risk of forgetting that, in the end, we are here to build an encyclopaedia; humour has its place as long as it helps us to do that. I think I'll have to delete some of my humorous things from Misplaced Pages space, as my point of view on this ahs moved quite a bit recently. WP:NCR stays, though, because it has a seriuos point, as all the best humorous Wuikistuff does.

@ Thank you for your answers! :) - Mailer Diablo 23:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from xaosflux

(Similiar to MD's Q#3 Above)

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 13:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

   Assigning oversight and checkuser is something that will always have to be done with great care. Adminship is no big deal, we can undo most of the stuff an admin does, but these two have the potential to open Pandora's box (we do not want a CheckUser feeding info to Wikitruth, for example). I am not opposed in principle to new applicants for these rights, or to a process for promotion, but there must be a right of veto at some level and in some cases we will have to accept that reasoning will not be given for that veto. The community has to be able to trust implicitly those who have the Oversight and CheckUser roles. That doesn't mean they have to be infallible or superhuman or anything, it means they must fail to safety (i.e. in cases of doubt default to maximum privacy). If a CheckUser refuses a request, no damage is ultimately done. At work I have god rights and can read every message in every mailbox. I don't do that, ever, and never have, because it would undermine not just my own position but the trust of the entire user community in the integrity of the mail system.

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?

   There are at least two cases I know of (both involving Radiant!) where ArbCom is skating round the edges of this issue - and doing it rather successfully in one of them, I feel. There are other cases where policy has been effectively made, by precedent, through ArbCom ruling (no links to sites which "out" Wikipedians, for example). As interpreted in practice, these will be taken as immutable rules and zealously applied, so ArbCom has to be extremely wary of ruling on issues of policy, and where it does so it must be by clear reference to the application of existing policy, not the formulation of new policy. Thus, it is fair for ArbCom to include as a finding of fact that the community has or has not accepted a guideline, where this is unambiguous; it is fair for ArbCom to rule on whether individual editors have overstepped the rules in lobbying for or against a guideline; but in the end the supreme authority for policy is not ArbCom, it is the community and / or the foundation. ArbCom can rule on whether individual editorial actions are in line with policy and Foundation principles, but it cannot (and should not aspire to) make formal policy by fiat. In the specific case mentioned, I would be inclined to say that the proposal has not achieved consensus and is therefore not enforceable, but that individual actions will be judged against policy and legal opinion. Since the basis of this proposal is a supposed legal restriction, I would support referring it to Brad, but if the divided parties are unable to compromise then it may be appropriate for ArbCom to state as a finding of fact (i.e. a statement of the case as it stands, not a binding decision) that the proposal does not have consensus. If there is significant disruption, it may also be appropriate for ArbCom to recommend that the proposal be marked as rejected, assuming no significant steps towards consensus in the mean time. Note that there is a huge difference between ruling that debate on a failed proposal should be drawn to a close to avoid acrimony, and arbitrating that a proposal has consensus, shutting out a substantial and vocal minority. I don't see ArbCom doing that, though, and I would not want that to happen.

   Clarification, please: are you saying that, in the general case, the ArbCom can or should be able to mark a proposal as a failure, but not as a success? AnonEMouse 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

   It's more that it's fair to ask ArbCom for closure where something is failing to achieve consensus, and continuing dispute at the margins is sapping the community's time to no evident good effect, but ArbCom is not a way of getting a casting vote when trying to promote something to guideline or policy status - if consensus is not there, then we should rewrite or move on. I note that in at least one current case some of the arbs are holding out against the issuing of content guidance. This is good. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 16 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?

   It rather depends on how the problem is framed. If you consider it from the point of view of ArbCom ruling on whether the conduct of the 'crats, as 'crats, is in line with policy, then I don't see a fundamental difference between that and, say, being asked to rule on use of admin tools, or CheckUser, or any other privilege. If you consider it form the poitn of view of ruling on the choice the 'crats made, rather than whether they were entitled to make that choice, then I would say not. I would not want ArbCom to decide on whether individual users should or should not get adminship. I'm guessing the arbs would not want to go there either.

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?

   Yes, of course. Look at User:SPUI for example. The community and the arbs cut him a lot of slack in recognition of the very hard work he has put in. We do not require people to be infallible. Someone who is consistently tendentious may be banned, where someone who is usually good but has a bad episode may be admonished. I would hate to see it any other way.

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.

   I am having some difficulty visualising what you mean here; as far as I'm concerned what you present is a false dichotomy. To my mind this would be no different in principle from weighing up the balance when two very good editors are in conflict (except that admins are expected not to use the tools where they are personally involved, but I'm assuming here that there is no pre-existing dispute, and the dispute comes about due to an admin coming along to a running dispute). If the admin is involved in a content dispute, and uses the tools to gain an advantage, then that is unequivocal.

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.)

   You are assuming that there is a decision they have reached with which I would disagree - given the quality of past arbs, that is a big assumption. But I will review them and see if I can find one in the last year or so (much older than that and the dynamic of the project is probably too different).

   One case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon, included a finding for which I did not care much, that the requirement for reliability of sources could be relaxed in order to allow more timely coverage of current events. We are not Wikinews, this may prove to be a mistake, but I'm content to sit and wait to see what happens. But that's not a decision I disagree with as such.

   One case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba (from which I would have recused were I an arb, due to my being a Christian) leaves me rather dissatisfied, in that the article on Sathya Sai Baba still, after the arbitration, reads to me as excessively sympathetic. This is partly a result of my own beliefs and partly because my own exposure to this subject has been largely through a series of television documentaries which are highly critical of Sai Baba, painting him as a charlatan and possible child molester. That said, on the balance of evidence and policy, I cannot fault the conclusion. Mostly this just highlights the difficulties in documenting subjects where opinion is highly polarised with little genuinely objective independent coverage.

   Clarification please: you seem to have done the research to find two instances where you disagree, but then write that you don't disagree after all? AnonEMouse 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

   I disagree at the gut feel level but cannot dispute the evidential basis. I have spent quite a bit of time readng through old cases and can only find isolated elements where I disagree. Reviewing the history of some of them, it seems that the items I would dispute, failed to reach a consensus among the arbitrators and were voluntarily struck, or never made it past Workshop. I am not comfortable with Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon, in the single specific respect that it endorses use of blogs as sources for developing current events, because i think as an encyclopaedia we have no need to lower our standards in order to document things on which we do not yet have any proper historical perspective, but that is a Wikiphilosophy which does not have widespread support and actually I am now persuaded that what matters is not the medium so much as the source - some individuals have blogs where they publish material which is fact-checked and based on intimate personal knowledge of the subject, and these are no less valuable than editorials in academic journals. Of course they are less good than a peer-reviewed publication, but the peer-review process is not infallible. This is why I like to see a decent number of reliable sources for an article which looks to be vulnerable to POV (including corporate biography and articles on popular culture where Google results are likely to be heavily over-represented by fans). I guess what I'm saying here is that I think the process is pretty good, and where my personal views conflict with what ArbCom says then I would either have recused in advance or accepted the consensus. I think it is not good that we have few active arbs right now as it makes it more likely that a contentious decision might slip through, but looking at this version of a current RFAR I would be surprised if a really bad one made it out. Does this make me part of the hive mind? I have no idea. Perhaps it just indicates that I am open to persuasion by a reasoned argument, or at worst I'm prepared to agree to differ.

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?

   To be honest I have always assumed that Fred communicates with the other arbs by mail during this process, but in any case I don't see it as his prerogative to do this, and would have no reluctance in doing so provided I could do as good a job (which would be difficult!). Looking back, it was not always the case that one arb was most active in this way, and it will probably be different again going forward.

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?

   There are many excellent editors who are not admins, especially given what David Gerard (I think it was him) described as the "arbitrary demands for shrubberies" at RFA. Most new sysops seem to be elected as janitors or vandal fighters, and these are not essential qualities for an arbitrator. It's not a question of "representation", this is not a democracy, it's a question of the best candidates for the job.

AnonEMouse 14:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Newyorkbrad

Welcome to the hustings. These are standard questions that I have been asking all the candidates. I see a lot of questions up above, so to the extent one of your answers would duplicate something you've said above, feel free to cross-reference instead of repeating. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 16:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

   Encourage more community-based management of problem users. I would not want to see less consideration of cases, although there is no reason it can't be quicker as long as the same amount of thought goes in. After reflecting a bit more on this, I'd like to say that actually I rather admire the way that ArbCom thinks things through. Sure, it takes longer than we'd like, and there is a lot of fighting between the disputant parties in the mean time (which I would like to do something about, perhaps via temporary injunctions) but it is good to have a balance to the dominant culture of immediatism. There is, after all, no deadline to meet. Concerns over content - specifically defamation - would never be dealt with by ArbCom anyway, so it's good to take the time to investigate properly, and perhaps if we felt less pressed to act now! we would all of us be less inclined to bite.

2. If elected, do you anticipate participating in drafting the ArbCom decisions? If so, do you have any writing experience relevant specifically to this task?

   Yes I anticipate doing that, no I have no specifically relevant experience (although I spent some years working as a technical writer as part of my job; it's not the writing that causes the uncertainty, it's the nature of it). On the other hand, this is a wiki and we debate content, all of it, including ArbCom decisions. Many of our editors are not great writers, but their input can be valuable anyway.

Questions from John Reid

Q: 1. Who are you?

A: I am Guy Chapman (this is on my user page). My identity is not and never has been a secret. I'd tell you more about me if you want, but I'm guessing this is about whether I am open about my real identity, background, opinions and biases, which I am.

Q: 2. Are you 13? Are you 18?

A: No, I am 42 (this is on my candidate statement).

Q: 3. Should ArbCom arbitrate policy disputes or any other matter outside user conduct issues? Why or why not?

A: ArbCom exists to arbitrate user conduct issues. There are a couple of cases currently in arbitration where they have been asked to rule on policy but it seems to me that they are restricting themselves (rightly) to considering principles, and user conduct as related to those principles. So: foo is policy is a valid finding of fact, foo is policy is not a valid remedy.

Question(s) from maclean

Do you have dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee, Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal, Misplaced Pages:Third opinion, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, or Misplaced Pages:Association of Members' Advocates? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you seek a position with the Mediation Committee? ·maclean 07:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been involved in several RfCs (and some RFARs), have referred several users to the AMA, but do not typically take part in mediation committee / cabal cases because as an admin I am more usually called on to protect or block. I have sent quite a few people in the direction of dispute resolution instead of taking admin enforcement action in what appear to me to be differences of opinion between good-faith contributors. I am a strong supporter of fixing things within the community where possible. I had not really considered joining the mediation committee or cabal (nobody suggested it to me!); I would stand if people with more experience of it came along and told me I could make a useful contribution.

Question from Ragesoss

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

• This is well illustrated in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The neutral point of view means reflecting the balance of informed opinion. If the subject is one of the natural sciences, then the scientific point of view pretty much is the neutral point of view, in that the scientific community has a pretty good mechanism for weighing up the merits of competing theories. That doesn't mean every article must be written about the consensus view, but it does mean that articles on views which are dismissed or refuted by the scientific consensus are treated in a way which , while it provides full information about the subject (provided it is verifiable from neutral sources of course) leaves the reader aware of the extent of its acceptance or lack thereof, and the reasons for its lack of acceptance. It means that tiny minority theories can be ignored in high level articles on the consensus view. And it means that if a supposedly scientific subject has absolutely no sources, pro or con, in the scientific literature, then it is almost certainly not appropriate for inclusion, as was the case with Aetherometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

If the subject is, say, creationism, then the neutral point of view is probably an agnostic one, rather than strictly humanist or scientific, and NPOV would require that we reflect the fact that creationism is a belief system restricted to a subset of Christians, and that the majority view in the West at least is that it is not a correct explanation of the origin of life. We do this pretty well, for the most part, in high profile articles, but abysmally badly in some cases where almost the sole interest comes from proponents of the theory; weeding through walled gardens of articles like those on Remote Viewing and rooting out the POV can be exhausting. Astrology is a good one here - NPOV says we must reflect the fact that large numbers of people believe it, but we have to guard against giving undue weight to the claims made by certain people who try to "prove" that it is a science.

I'm certainly not inclined to believe everything a man in a white coat says, because I have experience of the problems with certain types of observational epidemiological studies (most highly cited studies of this type later turn out to be wrong or at least greatly overoptimistic; tey are however routinely represented as what "science says"). The most spectacular example I can remember was the supposed link between combined hormone replacement therapy and reductions in coronary heart disease. "Suspend belief" is a valuable principle .

Point of clarification, per a followup on my talk: not all sources we use must necessarily be neutral, when I say that a theory must be verifiable from neutral sources I mean that in order that it be represented as a scientific theory there must be at least some discussion in impartial sources - peer-reviewed journals or textbooks from respected publishers with a proven editorial process. We can use partisan sources to detail elements of a theory, but not as sources for its status, or indeed for its being a valid scientific theory. A good example here is Time Cube. As a theory of everything, it has no validity. As a scientific concept it is unverifiable. As a website we can verify that it exists and what it says, and that it is the butt of endless jokes due to its obvious absurdity and the eccentric (to put it charitably) nature of its proposer. But we cannot represent it as a scientific theory because we have no credible sources for its validity, because the world of science simply ignores it - as a theory it is clearly risible, claiming that pi=3.20 exactly and that -1 x -1 = 1 is "stupid and evil".

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?

Resignations tend to be due to something unforeseen, and I don't foresee any unforeseen events :-) What's more important is that I would resign if there was a clear indication that I had lost the trust of the community, or if I felt that my judgement was unsound, or if some external commitment came up which meant that I cold not give the time to it which is needed. I would do this regardless of whether it left a gap, because in the end the community can always appoint another arb, there is nothing to say we can only do this through a once-a-year election. In my view it's better to let an arb step down gracefully than have a long and bitter fight about something. We have seen more drama around ArbCom in the past 12 months than I would expect, but then, we've seen more drama on Misplaced Pages with things like the userbox war and other issues which polarise the community.

I would point out that this year I have suffered the loss of a sister and moved house, and I'm still here.

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?

By reference to user conduct and policy. ArbCom does not rule on content, after all. What we require is verifiability, not truth; if that means we represent both sides of an external controversy and document the debate then that is fine by me. It's only when one or other group takes it upon themselves to assert the truth of one or other position that we have a problem. What is more difficult is where we have a dominant and a fringe theory, and one side wants to include the fringe theory in the article on the mainstream view, and the other wants to include the mainstream view in the article on the fringe theory (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience). The latter is generally required by WP:NPOV, since we must reflect at the very least the fact that the mainstream does not accept the fringe theory, and why, but the former is an editorial judgement and may well require specialist knowledge in order to evaluate the significance of the fringe view. As a content issue that would be settled through debate, RfC etc.; ArbCom is involved only if the editors are unable to disagree in a civil and productive manner.

Question from Giano

What is your view on the IRC Admin Channel. What subjects do you, and would you if elected, see fit to discuss on the IRC Admin channel? Why would you not discuss the same subjects On-Wiki. Giano 18:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC

I don't use it, never have. I don't see it as appropriate for ArbCom deliberations anyway since IRC is for quick chat (great for vandal fighting) whereas ArbCom has no deadline to meet and needs to be right, not fast. In any case I would rather things were either out in the open wherever possible (the mailing lists are OK, but I still prefer on-wiki for anything of substance) or private via email. Discussions on IRC inevitably give rise to accusations of a cabal.

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 13:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Being an admin has reduced my time working on articles to the minimum I'm prepared to tolerate, so the thing which would slip would be doing admin "stuff" (which is OK, I guess, since there are a thousand others; some people might think it a blessing if I spend less time on that!). I have a list of articles which I think need creating or expanding, and one by one I hope I'll cross them off. I still maintain outside interests :-) Availability? Sure. I have only ever come across a handful of people who I will absolutely refuse to have anything more to do with and two of these sent gleeful messages after my sister died, I don't think many people would mark me down me for that. I wish I hadn't just remembered that, I can't express adequately how those messages made me feel. Anyway, I have always tried to be approachable, but of course some people find me intimidating for whatever reason. I strive not to ignore any civil question or comment, but I bet I have missed a few along the way simply by virtue of being very busy (here and in RL). In the end, what you see is what you get with me. Guy 19:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Cryptic

You state above that "... ArbCom has to be extremely wary of ruling on issues of policy, and where it does so it must be by clear reference to the application of existing policy, not the formulation of new policy" (emphasis yours). How do you reconcile that statement with this deletion of well-sourced material claiming "Blatant WP:BLP violation"? —Cryptic 18:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs to be reconciled, since that was an action I took as an individual admin based on my interpretation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV; it does not seem to me to set any kind of precedent (why would it? I am just one of over a thousand admins). That article reads to me as a blatant POV fork, it's not a notable test case cited in the judicial reviews or legal journals (or at least not so far as I can tell) and it seems to serve no purpose other than to pursue an agenda against a living individual. I can't say I'm an admirer of that individual, but it appears to be hard enough keeping the lid on this POV in one place without it appearing twice. WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (which this appears to me to violate by virtue of being a POV fork and by giving the case undue weight) are existing policy. As always I am happy to have this decision reviewed if anyone wants to review it, and will do my best to accept with good grace if it is restored, but I don't see that as being particularly connected with ArbCom, other than that it's also mentioned in an ArbCom case. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Torinir

I'm asking these questions all applicants:

1) How would you handle a situation where an error of judgment has occured, especially if evidence is provided to confirm that the position is incorrect?

If it's a genuine error of judgement and not motivated by any kind of malice? Just undo it. This is a Wiki after all. If it leads to a user dispute and the finding of fact is that ti was an error of judgement, then the remedy would be to recommend it be undone, but I doubt that most good-faith editors, faced with compelling evidence of an error, would stand in the way of tis reversal to the extent that ArbCom became involved. At least, I'd hope not.

2) If a decision of yours, while technically a correct one, would knowingly be unpopular en masse, how would you present your decision?

I'd state it in simple terms and give reasoning. I've never been one to consider popularity as a guiding principle in making a particular decision - What do I care what other people think? - but that is not the same thing as ignoring consensus and we must make a distinction between a correct but unpopular action and one which simply overrides consensus (or even a vocal minority). And of course it's not always easy to see the difference. Take, for example, the deletion of Brian Peppers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). By some definitions the meme was verifiable even if the individual fundamentally is not; an alternative interpretation is that it violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to one single incident and some highly distasteful "look at the freak" piss-taking. Perhaps we should add "Misplaced Pages is not a freakshow" to WP:NOT :-)

3) Place each of these policies/guidelines listed in order of precedence (to you) starting with highest priority. There is really no right or wrong answer. I'm interested in seeing what you would normally look at first when assessing an article.

The key here, for me, is when assessing an article. Some things need immediate action, others, while important - vital, even - can wait. Apart from the top two, which are mandated by foundation for the protection of the project, NPOV, V and OR are the big three and much of the rest of policy and certainly guidelines tracks back to these. So:

1. WP:BLP because people matter - also because without this our asses will get sued and we don't need that - but actually this is only a distillation of NPOV, V, RS, NOR as specifically applied to biographies; the reason it gets top spot is because violation requires fixing now.
2. WP:C in as much as again we cannot afford to be sued, copyright violations should be nuked on sight. Slightly less important than BLP because in the end we can probably wait until we get a DMCA takedown notice, but it is always best to avoid that. And frankly there is no point trying to evaluate the neutrality, verifiability etc. of a page that has to be nuked due to violating WP:C. So this comes before the content itself.
3. WP:NPOV, non-negotiable, the founding principle of the entire project
4. WP:V, underpins NPOV in that we have to be able to prove the content is neutral
5. WP:NOR, underpins NPOV and V, because if the work is original/unpublished we can't verify its neutrality
6. WP:RS, a guideline which helps with assessing verifiability
7. WP:N, a guideline which describes the kind of article which is likely to meet policy
8. WP:NOT, in as much although I see (by virtue of the articles I frequent) a lot of soapboxing, a lot of content that fails WP:NOT badly enough to require action also fails something else. The WP:NOT failures I encounter are typically dictionary definitions and directory entries. The directory entries I come across largely fail WP:V since there are few, if any, reliable sources for them (they are usually free software).

Questions from Ben Aveling

1. Which of the follow roles should arbcom members fulfil: judge, jury, executioner, detective, lawyer, psychoanalyst, teacher, leader, parole board, parole officer, weighing machine, opinion poll, weathervane, policeman, keeper of the vision, guardian of peace, visionary, psychic, nurse, other?

• Oh, all of them, plus a few others :-) Actually ArbCom more like the inquisitorial system, whereas the roles mentioned are based on the adversarial system. Detective work is a part of it, although the parties usually bring plenty of evidence, and it has been described as forensic activity by some. I wouldn't glorify it with that term, but the ability to follow things back to their source is needed. In the end ArbCom's job is to verify that the evidence brought is representative, and then clarify how it relates to policy. Weighing machine fits...

2. What would wikipedia lose if you were (re)appointed to the ArbCom?

• I think it would lose much of the admin work I do (perhaps no bad thing) but then, if I restrained myself from getting involved in day-to-day janitorial stuff it might gain some productive edits to the encyclopaedia, so maybe not all bad. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

3. How to handle a user who wants to make a contribution but lacks the social skills to do so?

• Depends. If its the aggressive type of lacking social skills then we have a real problem; if they absolutely cannot interact civilly then we have not much option but to show them the door. If the user is not aggressive but simply does not "get" how we work then a mentor or buddy might be able to help, and I've had several productive email conversations with editors who don't get what the problem is with what they are trying to do; being approachable and responding thoughtfully when engaged directly is always a good technique with the knowledgeable but socially below par. It's a perennial problem, though, in that fundamentally a lot of us don't have the time to help out the enormous number of such people we come across, and some of them probably are not worth the effort (there is only so much you can do to help someone who wants to add content they can't properly justify). But some people whose skills in collaborative editing are below what might be desired (SPUI again) can be worth the effort.

Regards, Ben Aveling 21:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Sugaar

How would you deal with abuse of authority by administrators, meaning by this application of blocks as punitive measures and use of blocks in unclear PA cases, as per WP:BLOCK. Would you protect the sysop no matter what or would you defend policy above all? In other words, what do you consider more important: strict discipline or strict application of policy? Thanks.

The phrasing of the first part gives me some slight problems: first up, one must establish that it is a genuine case of abuse of privilege and not the routine cry of "rouge admin abuse!" by a frustrated soapbox warrior (which is by far the most common source of allegations of abuse of privilege in my experience). Then one must look at the circumstances: is it a borderline case? A bad call? You ask about "unclear PA cases" - that covers a pretty broad spectrum from biting the newbies (bad) to stopping one of those few users who spend their entire time skirting the borders of personal attacks, Wikilawyering over the resultant blocks and blatantly gaming the system. Assuming it's a bad call, or newbie-biting, then one must look at the history. Is this an isolated incident, where simply pointing out the error will prompt an apology? Or is this an admin who routinely tramples round the place blocking people on flimsy grounds, in which case serious consideration needs to be given to their continued use of the sysop bit. So: it's rather a loaded question, and carries with it a very wide range of possible answers.

I'd want to see some evidence of prior attempts to resolve the dispute before seeing it at ArbCom. And by that I don't mean a series of places where a user has protested a block and been told by numeorus others that it was perfectly fair. A common example is an editor who calls another editor a nazi. That is not in itself a personal attack, but it is gross incivility and highly offensive to many people. Such behaviour, if repeated, undoubtedly warrants a block to allow them to cool off; the wise editor will accept this and move on - it doesn't matter precisely which nuance of policy was breached, there is no doubt that policy was reached, and probably the editor has lost their temper and needs a cooling-off period. Sometimes the blocked editor will start arguing about it, and bring the case to the admin noticeboards - they are usually politely advised to learn and move on, or to start an RfC. The way we know that an admin is behaving badly is when we start getting RfCs certified by more than just a few disgruntled disputants, and that is when ArbCom gets involved.

To take it at face value, though, an admin who starts playing fast and loose with the block button should be placed on block parole, just as an admin who wheel-wars (or indeed an edit warrior) may be placed on revert parole. Rightly or wrongly the community (and the admin concerned) seem to think that desysopping is a Huge Big Deal, so the temporary suspension of the sysop bit is an option which has not really been explored. Reinstatement of desysopped admins has caused much pain and grief.

In the end, though, nobody gets protected against the consequences of their actions, if those actions are to the detriment of building the encyclopaedia. Have I answered your question? Guy (Help!) 20:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

More or less you did. It is an election question but it is also something I'm worried about personally (I have been blocked with only one official warning before, never ever got in such trouble before - and it's two years as wikipedian, and the alleged PAs are nuisances, ignoring my clear intention of ammendment after I discovered that calling "nazi" to an obvious neonazi could be PA)

Why do you think that while WP:BLOCK clearly states that ANI is the place to appeal such questionable blocks, and RfC must be initiated? WP:RFC, at least the main page, does not make explicit mention either of RfCs on administrators, only on articles, users as editors and I personally am wary of starting it when other people involved in the same situation has not done it about my suppossed malignant behaviour or anything. In fact I was the only one who started an RfC in the disputed article (contents) but got no replies.

The PA issue has been used as means to displace editors from the disputed article (personally I'm not getting back in that rat-trap after the block) by POV-pushing editors with a clear ideology. It's not any rouge administrators thingy. It's simpler but also more complex.

This is not election-related so you may prefer to reply in my talk page. Thanks for your comments anyhow. --Sugaar 21:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous ways of appealing a block, including placing {{unblock}} on your user page, but reading the threads here I'm afraid you're flogging a dead horse. You were clearly in the wrong, and a six-hour block is not in the least harsh. The fact is, you can't use WP:NPA or WP:CIV to chase an editor away from a contentious article unless they are being incivil. If all sides keep their cool, nobody gets blocked. That said, it's never a surprise when debate becomes heated on the Talk pages of articles on Moldova, Transnistria, the Basque region, Cyprus, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands - and of course the daddy of them all Gdansk. Or is it Danzig? (No, no, I don't want to hear). Try not to take it so personally (and yes I know I'm a fine one to talk). Guy (Help!) 00:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)