Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Raul654/Questions for the candidate - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007 | Candidate statements | Raul654

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Raul654 (talk | contribs) at 20:46, 16 November 2007 (→First question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:46, 16 November 2007 by Raul654 (talk | contribs) (→First question)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Questions from I

  1. What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committee? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. As a current arbitrator, how have you tried to fix them? If appointed for this tranche, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues now?
    Like everyone else, I would prefer that the arbitration committee worked faster. And if I knew a way that this could be done without compromising higher priorities (like rendering a good decision), I would have suggested it already. As to what I have already done - I created the clerking system. This has spread out the more mundane work over a larger number of people. Raul654 04:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. As best I can tell, you have the most positions of authority(for lack of a better word) of anyone on en wiki. You have all four permissions, (admin, bureaucrat, oversight and checkuser) you are an arbitrator, and the FA director. Do you feel as if any of your efforts in these areas has suffered because of the others, in this case your ArbCom work? What is your opinion on one user holding so many positions of authority? i  04:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    (1) The other stuff I do around here consumes up a great deal of my time, and as such, in the last 6 months-or-so I have not spent as much time voting in cases as I would have liked to. I do actively participate on the arbcom mailing list, which has a lot of traffic and which deals with many things not pertaining to any currently active cases. (Requests from community banned users to be unbanned, requests/disputes involving old cases, requests for checkuser and oversight permissions, etc). Beyond time issues, no, I do not feel that any of my positions have interfered with each other, and cannot think of any occasion on which that has occurred. (2) As long as a user does them satisfactorily, I don't think that holding one trusted position should disqualify someone from holding another. Raul654 04:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from east718

  1. Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?
    (So as to avoid having multiple redundant threads on this page, see my answer to I's 1st question. Let me know if there's anything you feel I didn't answer Raul654 04:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC))
  2. Please list some cases which you did not arbitrate that you disagree with, whether in the intent, scope, or remedy. Are there any cases which you feel you made mistakes on? Thanks, east.718 at 04:28, 11/1/2007
    This is a rather tough question, since I have been an arbitrator for nearly the entire history of the arbitration committee (the committee only rendered 10 decisions prior to my original election, and I was a participant in one of those 10). I have participated in some cases as an involved user rather than an arbitrator, and I remember feeling the committee was too lenient in each of those. As far as mistakes, the arbitration committee clearly made a mistake when it put William M. Connolley (a world-famous climatologist) on a one-revert parole for defending our climatology articles against bad (politically motivated) science. The arbitration committee later explicitly revoked that and cited it as a mistake - the only time it has ever done so. However, it was not my mistake - I was against it from the beginning. Maybe I could have fought harder against it, but I was ultimately the correct one in that matter.
    My apologies for being obtuse. Surely you haven't participated in every case in the past four years? (If you have, my hat's off to you for your dedication.) I was specifically asking for examples of cases which you feel failed in some way which you did not participate in. east.718 at 22:13, 11/1/2007
    Since I became an arbitrator, for every case, I have either been an active arbitrator, an involved user (e.g, a participant in the case), recused, or inactive. I presume from the above you are talking about this last category. The only case I feel I was inactive in that really did deserve my attention was BADSITES. We, the committee, got criticized heavily over some of our intermediate decisions in the case. I made two attempts to sort it out from the bottom up, but the case was just too big, complex, and free-wheeling - I couldn't make heads or tails of it. Raul654 15:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Question from Ragesoss

In the Misplaced Pages context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 04:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the difference in is the eye of the beholder. I don't consider them to be all that different (I authored a very important arbitration principle relating to the use of scientifically reliable sources.) I think we have some excellent articles on science-related topics that are politically charged - Intelligent design and global warming - just to name two. These articles are very carefully written (both ID and global warming are featured articles), and need to be protected from people - with both good and bad intentions - who make detrimental edits. Raul654 14:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Heimstern

I'm not to going to ask you my usual questions, since I can ascertain the answers myself by looking at your record. My question is related to your level of activity on Arbcom. From what I've been able to ascertain, you've only actively participated in four cases in the past four months (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Do you anticipate that you will be able to participate in more cases over the next three years should you be reelected? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been very active in cases this year - many of them have been big, freewheeling ones that are hard to jump into. However, I have participated in the mailing list and tended to the million-and-one other mostly-invisible things the arbcom has to deal with. (Some recent examples: )
I don't expect to be in grad school forever, although it feels like that sometimes. I think my participation in the future will be greater, but I can't promise that it will be. Raul654 23:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Majorly

These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)

  1. How do you think that your personality would make you a good arbitrator?
    This question is difficult to answer in the abstract. Temperamentally, I think I'm a fair, reasonable person. An arbitrator must be honest and trustworthy, and I believe I am those as well. Raul654 23:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Do you have any experience in real life that could relate to activities arbitrators have to deal with?
    By way of real life mediation, lawyering, or other skills? Formal logic is part of my training, but beyond that - no, I can't say that I do. My background is computer technical, which is helpful as far as checkuser is concerned, but beyond that, when it comes to arbitration, not all that much. Raul654 23:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Majorly (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Picaroon

  • Under what conditions should non-arbitrators be granted access to the arbcom mailing list? Former members, checkusers/oversights who have never been on the committee, board members, others?
    • Jimbo and former arbitrators have it automatically (per a rule that I formulated when I set up the mailing list). I was in favor of giving read access to the clerks, but I was in the minority on that. Checkusers and oversighters have their own private mailing lists, although in practice the arbitration committee mailing list is used for both of these as well. Raul654 14:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please list the total number of alternate accounts you have used, and please list the usernames of as many as you feel comfortable making public.
    • 3: User:Ceiling Cat, user:JusticeGuy, and User:Lambchop, although sadly I have forgotten the password for this last account and never set the email address. Lambchop was registered just for fun (the name obviously implies it is a sockpuppet), I registered JusticeGuy so that I didn't have to switch from classic (my default skin) to monobook to see which featured articles that have appeared on the main page, and I registered Ceiling_Cat just for fun. Raul654 14:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Under what circumstances should a case be heard completely via email, as opposed to onwiki? Under what conditions should the committee block a user without making public the full extent of the reasoning (for example, this user)?
    • I am not thrilled by the prospect of hearing a case by email - I won't rule it out, but in principle I don't like it. (It's never happened that I can remember) The committee is privy to a lot of information which is private - both submitted by people who don't want their names revealed and from checkuser and other tools - and so there are a number of conditions under which we don't make the full reasons for our actions known. Raul654 14:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Sean William

  1. In your opinion, what is the best way to deal with revert-warriors brought before ArbCom?
    Generally, the people who get brought to arbcom aren't there because of reverting per se (the 3rr puts a hard limit on that), but because of more general problematic editing that probably includes revert warring. Exactly how we deal with this varies on a case by case basis. Raul654 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. What is your opinion about revert parole (1RR limitations, etc.)?
    (See my answer below Raul654 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC))
  3. What is your opinion about civility parole (also known as personal attack parole)?
    A while back (I'd say circa late 2005/early 2006) I prefered mentorships as an alternative to doing nothing or banning someone outright; however, mentorships proved to be a failure in almost every case. With the failure of mentorships, we started using paroles (on a per person, per article, or per behavior basis) instead, and that has worked fairly well. Raul654 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sean William @ 16:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question 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. Thank you, — xaosflux 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)
    I don't have a numerical threshold, if that's what you're asking. For both checkuser and oversight, when evaluating someone I want to know if that person is trustworthy, based on my personal experience with him/her, and based on the feedback I here from other users about that person. In addition, for checkuser, some technical knowledge of networking is necessary. Raul654 17:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

  1. A perennial issue with ArbCom is the increasing caseload. What do you personally think of the idea of splitting the caseload somehow so that not all active arbitrators participate in every case? Possible ways are self selected per case, split the arbcom into two parts semi permanently and assign randomly or round robin or by current case load (some cases are more work than others), split cases by jurisdiction (subject area or nature of case, perhaps) or other ways (which did I miss?). Please discuss the technical issues, pros and cons of this idea as a way to gain insight into your thinking about the Arbitration Committee in general. Thank you! ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)(Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)
    Self-selection is inherently flawed because of selection bias. As far as splitting the arbcom, I don't really care for the idea on its merits - every proposal for doing it seems to have lots of overhead. Nor, as someone who sees these things from the inside, does it seem to me like it's likely to speed up the process anyRaul654 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. "WP is not a democracy", "WP is not an experiment in governance or social justice", "WP is not fair", "There is an inherent right to edit WP by all", "Some people may act in good faith but are nevertheless not suited to working on this project, despite best intent". Which of these statements do you agree or disagree with? Why or why not? Thank you! ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)(Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages, thanks for the idea Xaosflux!)
    I disagree, to some extent, with "WP is not fair". Obviously the primary goal is to improve the encyclopedia, but I think a secondary goal should be to try to be fair. I disagree with "There is an inherent right to edit WP by all" - the fact that we ban people seems, on its face, to prove this false. Raul654 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from CO

  1. Question one: Is consensus really possible with over 200 people commenting on different processes?
    Answer: It's certainly possible, although I think with that many people participating, communication becomes progressively more difficult. Raul654 14:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. Question two: Does Misplaced Pages need some sort of governing body? If no, isn't ArbCom a governing body? If yes, what would you propose?
    Answer: I think we have a real problem with too many policy/guideline/essay/proposal pages, whose status is unclear, and whose wording changes on a daily/weekly basis. Ultimately, I think some solution will be necessary, although I'm not willing to concede that a governing body is necessary. The arbcom has, to some extent, served to clarify the worst cases, but it is not a governing body. Raul654 14:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. Question three: Should an admin/'crat/checkuser/oversight/current arbcom member really be blocked for edit warring? Do you think you understand NPOV and 3RR when you were blocked in April for violating the latter?
    I edit on several controversial topics (global warming and related articles; intelligent design and related articles; a number of World War II-related articles) where, to be frank, there is a lot of POV pushing and a lot of people are not editing in good faith. That I have to revert a lot of stuff should come as no surprise to anyone. I violated the 3rr because I reverted twice one day, and then 20-something hours later, I reverted twice more - I had lost track of the previous day's reverts. Raul654 14:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wanderer57

Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?

Thanks, Wanderer57 01:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I think RFCs tend towards the right outcome - if someone is doing something wrong, the RFC usually makes this clear; if someone is not doing anything wrong, the RFC usually makes this clear. I'm generalizing here, obviously - I haven't seen every RFC, but for sorting out the facts, I think they're usually pretty good. I'm on record as being against RFCs in general, because I don't think they're particularly effective at stopping bad behavior and tend to be misused. Raul654 14:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Supplementary question - can you be more specific re "fairness to the accused"? Thanks. Wanderer57 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The accused has an equal opportunity to make his case, and as I said above, I think RFCs generally tend towards the correct outcome, so in that sense, I see them as being fair. Obviously you can't say that every single case is, but I think that's true in general. Raul654 17:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Daniel

1: The use of IRC evidence in arbitration cases has flared up in certain cases. A few questions on this:-

a) Do you believe that IRC conversations in Misplaced Pages channels (ie. #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-admins) should be admissible in arbitration cases where it is directly relevant to the dispute at hand?
b) Do you believe the Arbitration Committee has the jurisdiction to sanction users in these channels when it relates to Misplaced Pages disruption? If not, should it?
c) If so, what are your thoughts on possibly creating an official Arbitration Committee IRC logging account in these channels for the purpose of providing corrupt-free logs when required for deliberation?

2: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Misplaced Pages? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they?

3: Are Wikipedians, in particular administrators, required to answer to the Committee for their activites outside English Misplaced Pages (ie. on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, Misplaced Pages-related websites including The Misplaced Pages Review, conduct linked to Misplaced Pages etc.). Should they be? If so, should the Arbitration Committee have intervened in the case of Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision?

4: Theoretical situation: an OTRS respondent blanks a section of an article on a living person, clearly stating that it is an OTRS action based on a semi-credible legal threat in the edit summary. The respondent then protects the article and leaves a note on the talk page asking for the section to be rebuilt, citing OTRS again. An administrator comes along and unprotects it 15mins later and reverts to the old version. A series of administrative and editorial reversions take place, with protection and unprotection (with content reversions) occurring three times in quick succession before both administrators are emergency-desysopped.

The article is then reprotected by a third administrator, and a case brought before the Arbitration Committee. Upon reviewing the OTRS ticket privately on the mailing list, it contains a semi-credible legal threat which is now being dealt with by legal counsel. With regards to the three administrators, what sanctions do you 'support' applying to each of the three?

5: What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war?

Questions from Addhoc

You are currently the project's Featured Article Director, in addition to being a crat. Are you overstretched? Do you have a view about separation of powers? Thanks! Addhoc 13:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a lot on my plate, there's no denying that. (Also, whenever there's a dispute, there's a natural tendency for the people involved to try to draw me in - last week's bruhaha with majorly being a good example). As long as the workload stays at its current level, I think it's manageable. 14:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as separation of powers, this has come up from time to time. I do not feel it's a serious concern - the jobs of bureaucrat, arbitrator, and FA director are distinct enough that they rarely come into conflict. (Never that I can think of off the top of my head) Raul654 14:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ultraexactzz

Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.

Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.

Needless to say, it did not go well.

However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ ~ Evidence 15:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Hard working" (Ok, that's two, but close enough)
Being an arbitrator entails a seriously large amount of work - most of which never sees the light of day. Raul654 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wikidudeman

In my experience, many larger arbitrations seem to suffer from the fact that the arbitrators do not spend as much time on examining the evidence and statements as they should be spending. Examples of problems that arise would be proposals not being used or relevant issues not even being addressed. This is probably due to the large backlog and caseload. What would you do to ensure that all arbitrations are ended efficiently and fairly and that all issues and concerns are addressed and all needed remedies met? Wikidudeman 23:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, many large arbitrations suffer from the fact that the evidence presented is large, unwieldy, and barely coherent (if at all) - and if you haven't been watching the dispute from the very beginning, it's basically impossible to reconstruct events afterwards. Saying that the arbitrators aren't spending enough time on them is a facile answer, but not the right one. If people want arbitration to be faster and achieve better results, they could start by doing a better job explaining the issues (as in, from the beginning), rather than giving us a mental core dump and expecting us to spend inordinate amounts of time sorting it out. Raul654 15:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Question two from Wikidudeman

Why haven't you answered my question yet, or a few other questions from other editors? Wikidudeman 21:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(A) I have now, and (B) because there are quite a lot of questions here, many of them non-trivial to answer, and the easier a question is to answer, the more quickly I answer it. Raul654 15:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Dihydrogen Monoxide

Could you please "follow" the Zscout370/Jimbo discussion and give an opinion on it? — H2O —  00:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(See my response to jd2718's second question below. Raul654 02:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

Questions from MrMurph101

Greetings. I first want to say good luck in your running for re-election and to every candidate as well. I just have two questions.

  1. Since you are running for re-election, do you think there should be term limits in the ArbCom?
    (See my answer to jd2718's 4th question. Raul654 15:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC))
  2. Also, I followed an ArbCom case, which was dismissed, that you were involved in that I was just observing to see how the process works. One of the participants complained about your participation because you already had some sort of involvement in the dispute and should have recused from hearing the case and proposing a decision. My question is, if an arbitrator has been involved in a dispute before it has reached Arbcom, should he or she still hear the case or would it be better to present evidence for the other arbitrators who have not been involved yet? MrMurph101 00:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from The Geogre

You may find this question impossible to entirely answer, as you have already had to deal with the live wire, and I actually feel fairly comfortable that I know your stance, but here it goes. Several times over the past twelve months, ArbCom and the Administrators noticeboards have come face to face with the practice and consequences of "back channel communications" between users (communication by private means or non-Misplaced Pages means). Do you believe that administrators and users "need" to have private conversations? If they do not need them, do you think that media that cannot be transported over to Misplaced Pages (IRC, instant messageners) have a proper use? Do you think that media that should not be ported over to Misplaced Pages (e-mail) because of the expectation of privacy inherent in them have a proper use for non-Arbitration purposes? Geogre 21:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Are back channels necessary to administer the site? Strictly speaking, no, they are not. Do I think they have a proposer use? Absolutely. IRC and email, when used right, are very useful tools to administering Misplaced Pages. As for using off-wiki channels (like email and alike) for non-arbitration purposes - well, there's obviously non-arbitration-related things like oversight-l and checkuser-l, where privacy is a big concern.
But I think the intent of your question was to ask me what I think about using off-wiki back-channels to discuss administrative actions and and regular editing. It's generally not needed for these things, as we have other venues. However, I just looked through my inbox as all of the Misplaced Pages-related emails (via the email-this-user function on my userpage) I've gotten over the years, and I have to say that many of them are editing and administrative-related. Obviously it must serve some purpose beyond what is available on-wiki, and given that, I don't think it should be prohibited. Raul654 23:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from User:Secret

Questions from Coren

  • Part of the Misplaced Pages philosophy is that, in theory, even the worse vandals can be coaxed and tutored into becoming valuable editors. Is there a point at which you will judge someone to be "beyond redemption"? That is, where it no longer appears reasonable to expend further efforts towards reform and exclusion becomes unavoidable? — Coren  04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • "Part of the Misplaced Pages philosophy is that, in theory, even the worse vandals can be coaxed and tutored into becoming valuable editors" - Where did you see this? I don't know who told you that, but that's just not the case. Experience on this site - with the mediation committee and later with mentorships - have shown that attempting to change someone's behavior is generally a fruitless endeavour. Paroles work in some borderline cases (like a good user who just has a bugaboo about some particular topic), but as I said, users' behavior is hard to change and bad users tend to say that way.
      • I've been told that Coren's question is a reference to this. Obviously, in the almost 3 years since that case, I've changed my mind on the matter. (It's also worth noting that Michael was later shown to have been engaged in misbehavior at the same time that he had supposedly reformed, thus, in effect, proving my comments here). Raul654 03:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The principal mandate of the Arbitration committee is to interpret the policies, guidelines and community consensus. There are cases, however, when individuals or the community will turn to the arbitrators to make policy, or draw the line in the sand in gray areas. How do you feel about those cases, and where do you feel the responsibilities and authority of the committee fall? — Coren  04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • In real life, courts generate case law, which (in essence) fills in the blanks between written legislative law. The problem on Misplaced Pages is complicated by the fact that the actual policies are in a constant state of flux with significant questions about what is and is not an actual policy (versus some page a user just decided to write and stick a policy tag on.) I feel that Misplaced Pages needs a better way of creating policy beyond what we have now.
    • The arbcom has generally avoided drawing new rules out of thing air, but does from time to time clarify policy, which may entail introducing new parts to it. (for example, for someone who voluntarily gave up their sysop bit needing a new RFA or not) Raul654 02:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718

  1. You've been an Arbitrator for (in WP-time) a long time. What would the committee lose if you were not returned? Would your presence be missed? How?
    I think institutional memory in a place such as this, with very high turnover, becomes especially important. I didn't realize until yesterday that none of the other current arbitrators are running again. Continuity is a trait that, I think, most people want the arbcom to have.
    Secondly, I interact with *many* people on Misplaced Pages. I think that makes me very approachable for people who have arbcom related questions and concerns, and it gives me an insightful perspective on cases.
  2. You really should take a look at the Miltopia-block ANI subpage and the Zscout-DsysOp ANI subpage, and offer a comment or two.
    I don't know much about Miltopia as an editor. Jimbo says (s)he's a long term troll, and a number of people agree with this. Zscout unblocked Miltopia, in what I consider to be a questionable judgment on his (Zscout's) part. But things like that happen on a daily basis, and they're usually worked out with little drama. Now as I said, while it was (IMO) a bad judgment on Zscout's part, I think Jimbo desysopping him was clearly overreaction. Raul654 02:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Are national conflicts sufficiently different from other problems that reach ArbCom, that the whole category should be treated differently? I am thinking of national-conflict group-edit-warring. In those cases, how successful has ArbCom been separating issues of conduct from issues of content?
    I do not consider them to be different from other content-disputes. Raul654 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. I support, IRL, term limits. Why should I not be concerned about them for ArbCom? Jd2718 12:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    Because being on arbcom is a job that nobody really wants - the fact that none of the other arbitrators are running is pretty clear evidence of this. The high turnover on Misplaced Pages as a whole renders term limits more-or-less unnecessary. Raul654 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from maclean25

As a follow-up to jd2718's Question 1 above: if unsuccessful here, do you intend to remain involved with the Arbitration Committee? For example, reading/responding to the mailing list, or as a clerk, or another aspect? --maclean 07:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I will continue participating on the mailing list (as is the privilege of former arbitrators). I do not think I'll be doing any clerking, though. Raul654 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Albion moonlight

1. Can an administrator unblock someone they blocked indefinitely or is it strictly against the rules ?

Yes, an admin can unblock someone who they have previous indefinitely blocked. Raul654 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Do you think that administrative abuse is far too prevalent at wikipedia ? 2a If your answer is yes, what do you think should be done to help prevent it ? Albion moonlight 08:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of admin abuse get thrown around a lot, but I think actual abuse is pretty rare. Raul654 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Veesicle

What are your opinions of secret evidence being given privately to ArbCom? To what extent is this acceptable? User:Veesicle 23:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care for the practice, but it's sometimes necessary to preserve privacy of the information involved (and/or the person whom it describes), the identity of the submitter, or both. Raul654 15:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from WJBscribe

A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer.

  1. Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Misplaced Pages in three years. Should there be a mechanism by which the Community can recall an arbitrator in whose judgment it loses confidence? Do you have any thoughts as to what form that mechanism should take?
  2. ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Misplaced Pages. Would you advocate withdrawing the access in the case of someone someone who failed to make sufficient use of it? If yes, what sort of activity level would you say is required?
  3. Where the Community finds itself unable to reach a consensus on the formulation of a given policy, do you think ArbCom has a role to play in determining that policy?

Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Warlordjohncarter

One basic question. I noted that Lar above has asked about what you think of maybe trying to formally split the arbitration committee into multiple subcommittees. My question is regarding your opinion of the idea of perhaps increasing the number of members of the committee, or possibly decreasing the required quorum, to the point that it would be more easily able to "break up" into smaller groups who would be able to take on a greater number of concurrent cases, and with luck speed some of the processes. These groups would not necessarily all have the same members every time, but would hopefully include those members of the committee who have a particular interest in or knowledge of the subject or point of contention. Would you favor or oppose such a development, and why? John Carter 00:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Ali'i

Pardon my bluntness (but I really don't know), but when was the last time that you wrote a proposed decision? From what I've seen it is mostly Fred or Kirill writing them, with the other arbitrators just showing up to vote. Mahalo, Raul. --Ali'i 17:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a substantial portion of David Shankbone/THF. Raul654 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Mahalo for such a quick response. Off to read a bit. --Ali'i 17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


Okay, one more:

You have done a lot of work as an abritrator, and are well-known around the community. Do you think you are the favorite for a spot? If not, whose odds do you think are better? No "political" answers please. :-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I have a good chance of being re-elected. Myself aside, I think Newyorkbrad also has a very good chance of being elected. Raul654 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for such an honest response. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus

  1. In the few ArbCom cases I have watched in the past you were inactive. Do you think this will change in the future?
  2. Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?
  3. If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?
  4. Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer?
  5. How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?

-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Revolving Bugbear

In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:

The servers for English Misplaced Pages are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Misplaced Pages from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Misplaced Pages, whose laws does Misplaced Pages need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear 16:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an attorney, so I'm not qualified to answer these questions. Raul654 21:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Jossi

What is your opinion on the use of multiple accounts in Misplaced Pages, as it relates to the recent discussions on the subject? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said to secret, I don't have a problem with people using multiple accounts, provided they are not using them to do bad things (or to get around a ban). That proposal would "eventually... tell people that unapproved unassociated socks must be abandoned by such and such a date", and thus I disagree with it. Raul654 21:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Interrogation from xDanielx

1. What is your opinion on the difference between private (i.e., consensus through arbcom elist) and public (i.e., WP:RFAR) ArbCom decisions? Should both be regarded as equally authoritative? Does the ArbCom have an obligation to make the former publicly accessible upon reasonable request (assuming no privacy issues are involved)?

2. In your experience as an arbitrator, have you found that your views on certain issues differ significantly from those of other arbitrators? If so, please elaborate on the specific issue(s). (This could apply to anything -- sockpuppetry tolerance, threshold for banning/desysopping editors, inclusionism/deletionism standards, etc.)

THF arbitration and recusal

Given your prior involvement in this dispute, why did you not recuse yourself from the case, as NewYorkBrad did? ATren 06:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The case involved THF's edits relating to Michael Moore, Sicko, healthcare, etc. While I had encountered THF previously (on global warming and related) I did not feel this constituted sufficient prior involvement for recusal. Raul654 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You clearly demonstrated an opinion on the matter just a few weeks prior to the Arbcom case. Specifically you said that::

THF should be banned from any political (or politicized) articles on which his employer, the American Enterprise Institute, has taken a stand. It's a clear conflict of interest for him to be editing these articles. Raul654 15:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

and then took the arbitration case involving THF after this. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Being able to judge the case objectively is not the same thing as turning a blind eye to his patently obvious conflict of interest. I stand by that comment 100%. -- Raul654 (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You also had a prior friendly relationship with David Shankbone, the other disputant in that case, and had actually participated (albeit in a small way) in the Sicko article conflict. These facts all call into question your impartiality in that case. Regardless of whether you believe you could be impartial, the argument could be made that your refusal to recuse was inappropriate, and hurtful to the image of arbcom. This was exacerbated by your being the most vocal arbitrator against THF, authoring a finding on him based on suspect evidence (mostly talk page debate) and actually modifying the finding against Shankbone so that it was less severe. Do you not acknowledge that your participation gave the appearance of partiality in this case? -- ATren (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That you claim the evidence of THF's problematic editing was suspect does not make it so. Of the 4 other arbitrators who voted on that finding, 3 of them found the evidence convincing. (James voted against it because of the wording of the finding, but his explanation says point-blank that THF edited problematically).
As far as modifying the finding of fact "against" David Shankbone, your statement is wildly misleading if not outright false. I did not change the actual finding; I changed the title of the finding from "Discourtesy by David Shankbone" to "Use of THF's real name by DavidShankBone" - the latter of which is a more accurate summary of what the FOF actually said.
My participation in this case gives the appearance that I am against POV pushing in our articles and especially against people editing when they have a clear conflict of interest. -- Raul654 (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yet, wouldn't it have been better for the project in general, and for the arbcom specifically, if you did not open it up to questions of impartiality? Everyone believes they are impartial, but a big part of being a judicial authority is knowing when the appearance of partiality demands recusal. Whatever your view as to your own impartiality, do you deny that your prior participation gave the appearance that you were partial, and if so, that fact would require your recusal to protect the integrity of arbcom? -- ATren (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The project is MUCH better off when the arbitrators are active and engaged in the community, and know what is going on. I've been here a long time - I've interacted, at some point and in some fashion, with almost everyone on the English Misplaced Pages. And this is a good thing - it means I'm fairly knowledge about much of what goes on here. I recuse myself when I have an actual bias. I do not recuse myself when I don't have a bias. As far as appearances, the only people who have claimed I should have recused myself are you and CoolHandLuke, who both spent weeks arguing in THF's defense (and thus your opinions are suspect). -- Raul654 (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Fred Bauder, your fellow arbitrator, thought you should recuse yourself and said so in response to the motion to recuse (a motion you never responded to, though you responded to later-filed motions). Newyorkbrad, who was far less involved in the case than you were, did recuse himself. Not only did you not recuse yourself, but you activated yourself from inactive status to participate in an arbitration that was already proceeding in full course, and took it over to steer it in a different direction. -- Evidence storage (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Motion? I have no idea what the above is talking about. I responded to every part of the proposed decision. -- Raul654 (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah. I didn't respond because I don't look at workshops. I don't consider them very useful - they're generally just vehicles for problem users to sound off. Fred does. As far as Fred's comment, again your statement is false and misleading. Fred said "it is up to the arbitrator to recuse themselves." -- Raul654 (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course, your characterization ignores the first half of what Fred said, which certainly implies that my recusal request was legitimate. But why should you start being honest now when you dishonestly decided the case without any due process? It sure would have been nice to know that the arbitration was a complete waste of time because you were going to ignore any of the evidence and motions because such things are aren't "useful." Meanwhile, you continue to dodge the question: you participated in the content dispute, yet jumped in to arbitrate it. Why? -- Evidence storage (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
There was a motion to recuse, and you ignored it. But thanks for proving my point that you wrote the proposed decision in a case that you had prejudged without reviewing the workshop evidence page or listening to anything the accused person had to say. -- Evidence storage (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
False. I reviewed the evidence page carefully and cited parts of it in the proposed decision. -- Raul654 (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This is false: you cited to a talk-page edit as a mainspace edit, which demonstrates that you didn't review the evidence page carefully, you just adopted wholesale the misleading findings of fact proposed by your fellow participant in the content dispute that you arbitrated. -- Evidence storage (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You are flat out, totally, demonstrably, wrong. I cited the evidence page. Specifically, "partially documented by smb." goes directly to Smb's (now-blanked) comments on the evidence page. Therefore, I did read the evidence page and your claims that I didn't are false. -- Raul654 (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you -- you just agreed with me. The only evidence you cited was (1) SMB's evidence, your fellow participant in the content dispute, while ignoring the multiple refutations of that evidence; and (2) a false characterizion of a talk-space edit on Talk:John Stossel as a main-space edits, and (3) talk-space edits on Sicko, again falsely characterized as a problematic mainspace edit, and again falsely characterized as OR. You never identified a problematic mainspace edit. You just ipso facto asserted it. It was an appallingly abusive finding. -- Evidence storage (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That you claim the evidence was refuted does not make it so. The fact of the matter remains that you cooked up, using your connections with your employer, a list of highest grossing documentaries (which included obvious non-documentaries like Jackass), and then tried to get it cited in the article. -- Raul654 (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
And I provided a detailed, diff-by-diff analysis of your finding on the Proposed Decision talk page. My analysis showed that yours and smb's evidence was almost exclusively talk page debates, that smb had only referred to a handful of mainspace edits, and of those, one was not even THF's edit and the rest were well cited. You never responded to that analysis. Did you read it? -- ATren (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Fred Bauder was also the only Arbitrator who supported your problematic editing, whereas every other arbitrator found your editing to be problematic. That no other Arbitrator except the one who saw nothing wrong with your problematic behavior probably explains your statement above. --David Shankbone 19:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where "prior friendly relationship with David Shankbone" comes in here, but my relationship with Raul has never veered outside of friendly Misplaced Pages editing, and that is not a standard for recusal. In fact, I have at times left messages for Raul that have gone unanswered, which I think is impolite. If you have some evidence or diffs that show we engaged in anything but question-and-answer about Misplaced Pages policy and content, I'd be interested to see them. The fact is, any of us who edit and give content as much as Raul and I do are always going to have some level of interaction, and hopefully it is friendly. --David Shankbone 18:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- see photo where you are standing next to Raul at the meetup. You also took his photo. Do you still deny knowing Raul outside of "friendly Misplaced Pages editing" before this case? -- ATren (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I did not know Raul before this case aside from coming across him on Misplaced Pages in questions pertaining to policy and content. In fact, if you look at the last time I edited the NYC meet-up page I couldn't even fill in the name of the User petting my dog in the photo (I was the one who created the sequential list of names found under the photo - still have no idea who that guy is). There were quite a few people at the meet up, and I showed up half an hour before it ended. Your other diffs all relate to questions of policy and content, and since I am well-known on here for my ability to take celebrity photographs, make nothing but sense. Like I said before, all of our interactions were friendly exchanges over Misplaced Pages policy and content, and anyone reading this is going to know those are signs of good editors, and not signs of collusion that would require recusal. --David Shankbone 19:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you really claiming that you didn't know Raul, even though you are standing next to him in the group photo and sought help from him in the THF case? Are you really denying any friendly relationship? -- ATren (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Here you went to him about the THF case, and you referred to him as "Mark". If you didn't know him, then why do you feel comfortable addressing him by his real name? Also I might add, you had clearly involved Raul in the THF case before this arbitration began, which only confirms my concerns about recusal. -- ATren (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that Raul has his real name on his User:Raul654 page, and aside from the fact that he runs Featured Articles, in which I participated with trying to give one of mine, Raul/Mark and I again had friendly interactions as Misplaced Pages editors and, like I say in the link you provide, "and I asked him because he is an authority". Are these really your "gotcha" statements to show we are buddies or something? Or do they in fact show that we are both high-profile Misplaced Pages editors who cross paths because we do a lot of work on here that gets noticed? If these are links showing that we are friends then I think you are falling hopelessly flat. Hopelessly. --David Shankbone 19:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
David, the evidence shows otherwise. You clearly had met Raul654, sought his input on THF, and he sought your input on photography - all before or during the case in which you were a party. I'm not saying you were friends, but you had met personally, had interacted on-Wiki in a friendly way, and you felt enough kinship with him to refer to him as Mark, and ultimately to bring him into the THF conflict. There is a very clear appearance of partiality here - and when there is a mere question of partiality, it is the responsibility of the arbitrator to recuse himself in order to protect the integrity of the committee. Raul654 did not do that. I think it's problematic, and others agree. -- ATren (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not the standard at all. Appearance?! That would get Arbitrators kicked off cases left and right just because another user such as yourself has demonstrated that a part had interaction with the Arbitrator. That would be an unqualified disaster, where the Arbitrators who most engage in editing Misplaced Pages--which they should so they can have practical knowledge--would be disqualified from ruling on cases. Given Raul's place in Wikimedia, as coordinator of Featured Articles, et. al, I dare say he has interaction with just about everybody. What you propose I doubt would carry support with anybody. --David Shankbone 20:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
David, you are a law student. If a judge in a trial not only knew one of the litigants personally, but also spoke out publicly against the other on the eve of the trial, would you not have concerns about his impartiality? -- ATren (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That is not analogous to the situation at hand. If a judge went to the same gym as a party, and asked them where the fresh towels were, or if they knew if the raquetball court was being used; and if that same judge saw the one litigant take the other litigants parking space at that gym and said they should not do that, then I would not think that would corrupt the judge's impartiality in case over whether the one litigant had stolen the other litigant's wallet and punched him (and other gym members) in the face. So the answer is, no. The second answer is, this is not a court of law and legal standards are not Misplaced Pages standards, nor should they be. --David Shankbone 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Raul654's explanation for failure to recuse ignores the fact that he edit-warred against THF on Sicko and violated WP:NPOVD by removing a legitimate NPOV tag that THF placed. The question remains: why did you participate in an arbitration over a content dispute in which you participated? THF 19:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Accountability, Transparency and Due process

Since Admins and Arbitrators have extra powers and responsibility, do you think their actions should always be (a) accountable (b) transparent (c) follow due process. --Raevaen 19:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Accountable - yes.
Transparent - not always (see my answers to Veesicle and Geogre on this page)
Due process - I'm not sure what you mean by this. Our dispute resolution process is a mess. I've been saying that since the day it was unveiled almost 4 years ago (and spent the next 6 weeks plodding my way through it trying to get Plautus Satire kicked off the site). -- Raul654 (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Evidence Storage

First question

You have stated:

THF should be banned from any political (or politicized) articles on which his employer, the American Enterprise Institute, has taken a stand. It's a clear conflict of interest for him to be editing these articles.

William M. Connolley is employed by a political advocacy group, Fenton Communications to blog about politically controversial issues. He edits Misplaced Pages articles related to these issues and related to people who comment on these issues, often citing to his own blog. Does this also violate COI? If not, what is the distinction?

Chip Berlet is employed by the political advocacy group Political Research Associates to write about the Christian right and extremist groups. He edits Misplaced Pages articles related to these issues and others on which his organization has taken a stand. Does this violate COI? If not, what is the distinction? -- Evidence storage (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Connolley is paid to promulgate an understanding of the science of global warming (in which he is an acknowledged expert). "His" blog, RealClimate (which, as I understand it, is contributed to by numerous other well-respected climate scientists) is generally considered one of the best sources on the web for accurate information about global warming. You work for the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that is paid by industry to lobby (or "deep lobby" if you prefer), create pro-industry talking points and shape the intellectual atmosphere on debates surrounding numerous issues, including healthcare, the environment, foreign policy, etc in favor of their contributors. One of these things is not like the other.
I've seen Chip's name come up from time to time, but I don't know enough about his situtation to comment. -- Raul654 (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Second question

User A was accused of harassing User B in an arbitration proceeding. Is it a violation of COI for User A to then edit multiple articles related to User B, or does User A have a conflict of interest? -- Evidence storage (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're obviously talking about David Shankbone (and his creating and editing an article about you). I don't think it's a conflict of interest, per se, but I do not approve of that. I think he should back off. -- Raul654 (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Third question

You feel very strongly about conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest. Should the standard for a conflict of interest be judged more or less strictly for an arbitrator deciding a case over a content dispute where he has participated (where there is no possibility of review) than for a Wikipedian editing an article (where other editors can act as a check)? -- Evidence storage (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Question on ignoring the Workshop page

Raul, you admitted here that you don't look at the workshop page of an arbitration. Can you please explain why you routinely ignore the Workshop page? -- ATren (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Workshop pages are Fred Bauder's creation. He finds them useful in writing arbitration decisions. (More power to him) I don't. I find them to be vehicles for trolls and other problem users to sound off. Users can provide evidence on the evidence pages. Arbitrators are under no obligation to use the workshop pages. -- Raul654 (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)