Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Jpgordon

My statement:

I'm here to be of service, as I was when I ran last time. I've been an editor since September of 2004 and an admin since November of that year. I feel I am particularly suited for participation on the Arbitration Committee due to my experience here, as well as my many years of experience with online community, first as sysop of my own BBS, and later as moderator of several high-traffic, high-profile conferences on The WELL. My strongest point, I think, is my ability to make impartial analyses of complicated situations; though I certainly have strong opinions in some areas, I'm able to set those opinions aside to work to help find solutions to human problems. I also pride myself on being able to recognize when a dispute exists primarily because one of the disputants wants a dispute.

jpgordon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Vote!

Question from UninvitedCompany

I applaud your decision to run. Would you like to share a few words on how Wikipedia compares to other computer-mediated communities, such as UseNet, the WELL, the BBS culture, mailing lists, and other wikis? In what ways is Wikipedia different? In what ways is Wikipedia merely an instance of the broader phenomenon of computer-mediated communities?

• Good question! (and thanks for the applause; I'll take all I can get.) There are a few things about Wikipedia that are very different from any of the other communities I've been involved with.
  1. Wikipedia is supposed to be useful to the world at large, not just to the self-selected group of community members. I've been enjoying this aspect of it; on other systems, even when I've been in a leadership role, the focus has been on sharing information with and maintaining an environment for a fairly small set of like-minded participants.
  2. Wikis are fundamentally different from other online cultures. The WELL presented their position as "You Own Your Own Words". You said it, you're responsible for it, only you can be blamed for it or praised for it. Wikis are just the opposite; you don't own articles, you don't own images, you don't own anything yourself except -- perhaps -- signed mutterings on the article talk pages. This puts an interesting distance in between yourself and anything you might write.
  3. Some systems allow much less anonymity than Wikipedia does. I consider this something of a flaw in Wikipedia's culture; the constant vandalism, graffiti, and sniping from unregistered and essentially untraceable users is a drain on the system and a waste of everyone's time. If there's any one thing that will cause Wikipedia to fail in the long run, it is this policy. I call it the "Usenet effect"; the quality of the conversation drops as the population of anonymes increases.
  4. Other than purely technical communities (and even to a great degree there), most online communities are about opinion, about ideas, about individuals, about the self. Wikipedia is not that at all; in the main article space, the self is expected to completely disappear, and on the other spaces, anything that's not aimed toward improving articles or managing the community is frowned upon. For a highly opinionated person like myself, this is a fascinating exercise.
  5. WP:NPOV would be laughed out of the building in pretty much any other context. "Neutrality? Why would anyone want neutrality? It's no fun!"
  6. WP:NOR is also quite a challenge, and a very unusual one. Most of the editors here are highly intelligent, very creative, and hard-working; and I imagine in real life, we all are very likely to come up with original ideas, hypotheses, and syntheses -- the very thing that has no place whatsoever on Wikipedia.
  7. The interpersonal politics is similar to some communities and very different from some others. My experience in online communities includes one where I've been the absolute bull goose loony (the BBS I ran in the '80s); one where I've had a shared leadership role, with a fair amount of power and control in specific areas and none at all in others (The WELL); and of course I've just been a participant in some systems (usenet, for example; some CompuServe forums back in the stone age; that sorta thing). We run into the same problems everywhere; some people have trouble dealing with community standards; some people dislike having anyone with any authority over them; some people just like to make trouble and be a nuisance; but most people want to at worst go along and get along, and at best work hard to improve the community. It only takes a few jerks to make things hard on everyone, no matter what the venue -- that's why anarchy doesn't work; there are enough people who want to be disruptive or worse, and there are enough people that want to be controlling or worse, making government and law necessary. I figure 90% don't really need any of that, but here we are, on a planet full of real people.
• In short, I think Wikipedia is very different from most computer mediated communities in some crucial ways, but similar in others; what is most unusual is that it focuses on an end-product rather than just focusing on yammer. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo

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

• ArbCom is the only thing in between the everyday editor and top-down imposed order. Wikipedia being neither an experiment in democracy nor an experiment in anarchy, the rather loosely defined mandate for ArbCom results in ArbCom primarily shaping the social policy on Wikipedia. If bullies are elected to ArbCom, then bullies will be more tolerated on Wikipedia; likewise, if people with a tendency to fold in the face of bullies are elected, bullies will be more tolerated on Wikipedia. What we need is people with both strength and flexibility in dealing with a wide range of editor personalities -- and the wisdom to do so without pissing off too many people, unless necessary.
  • I see that I've received a couple of opposition votes due to my wording here about "social policy". Please note that I'm being descriptive here, not prescriptive; other than the Jimbo fiats, all policy on Wikipedia comes from the community; ArbCom interprets (and thus shapes) policy as a natural part of dispute resolution, in particular when the dispute is regarding policy interpretation.

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

• I'd stop allowing unregistered IPs to edit. Perhaps I am cynical, as I've concentrated on vandal fighting in my time here, but it seems to me that a very small percentage of unregistered users have had a positive impact on Wikipedia; the bulk of their edits, instead, have been at best user tests and at worse vandalism. I don't think we would lose anything other than a commitment to a dubious policy were we to abandon this phase of the Wikipedia experiment.
  • It's been suggested that this point of view would bias me against anonymous editors with issues that need to be addressed by ArbCom. I can say with certainty that my opinion of whether anonymous users should be allowed to edit would not affect my judgment in that way - whether or not they should be allowed, they are allowed, and as long as they are allowed, they should be treated like any other editor. In fact, I've argued at least a few times on article talk pages against other editors who have belittled the anonymity of anonymous editors' contributions. (I wish I could find a couple of examples of it.)

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?

• Sure. Hopefully, I won't need to do much of either, but if needed, I'm here to serve. I've plenty of experience having access to, and not abusing, private information and special requests.

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

• The first two are the same as anywhere; stand up for what you believe, be consistant in the application of rules you are making and enforcing, and be willing to explain your decisions. Transparency, in an adjudicating body, is a bit more difficult -- some matters are best dealt with without public exposure, but these should be minimized. The one lack of transparency I've seen is that there often seems to be little or no connection between discussions on the Workshop pages and the results on the Proposed Decision pages. I understand that considerable discussion happens on other channels; striking the right balance between public discussion and privacy is tricky, and one I'm not sure ArbCom is doing right (of course, not being privy to the private discussions, I don't have full information.)

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

• We're supposed to be making an encyclopedia here. That being said, if people want to have fun in the course of it, that's good, but keep it out of the more publicly visible spaces. It was certainly the right thing to do, a couple of April Fools day back, when somebody instantaneously reverted when I changed "free encyclopedia" to "content-free encyclopedia" on the main page. (Well, I thought it was funny.) And it was probably OK that I did it in the first place. But it probably wouldn't be OK if I'd persisted in doing so after the first time. Our internal jokes shouldn't affect the casual user; whether they should do so or not, people rely on Wikipedia, and we have an obligation to keep providing them with as reliable a resource as we can; if people's jokes get in the way of that, then they are no longer "harmless fun". And I guess that's where I draw the line. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:11, 21 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.

• Well, let's see. The "abuse of authority" case would have to have proceeded pretty far before ArbCom would consider it. People making personal attacks sometimes don't admit that they are doing so; but personal attacks are just one specific case of incivil behavior. It's rather like WP:3RR being just one specific case of the rules against edit warring; yes, you'll automatically get into problems if you revert too often, but other forms of edit warring will also get you into hot water. Similarly, incivil behavior is sufficient to get one warned and then blocked; whether that behavior crosses the line into personal attacks or not doesn't change the incivil nature. And using twenty words rather than one to call someone an asshole doesn't change the fact it is still an attack directed toward the speaker, not to the thing being argued. That being said, if real abuse of authority is occurring, ArbCom has a responsibility to respond to complaints and act upon them. Block for 3RR aren't punitive, but blocks for incivil behavior may as well be; if an editor act like a jerk enough to get warned and then blocked for it, the punitive aspect is not a bad thing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is clearly against the policy (second line of WP:BLOCK). But thanks for your opinion anyhow.--Sugaar 22:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Shrug. The net effect is the same; the editor making the personal attacks gets a short vacation (sometimes just six hours -- it's surprising how badly some editors take to a well-placed slap on the wrist like that), and the personal attacks from that editor cease for the duration, stopping at least for that period the disruption and damage that the attacks were causing. That the editor being blocked happens to consider it punitive effect as well is jut a useful side effect, one which might well have some deterrent effect. I myself have been blocked for an intemperate personal attack; I know exactly what it feels like, and I've not done anything of the sort since, though I certainly have been tempted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Anomo

Would your experience when you had worked at eBay be of any way beneficial in helping you do your duties as an arbitrator? Anomo 04:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting question...Maybe a little, in that I received four more years of experience trying to help my peers do better work. But my end was mostly programming (and, more often, bugfixing), so there wasn't much room for the sort of work I might be doing with ArbCom. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(more)

1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• No. We've got a lot of young editors; it wouldn't bother me if some of the ArbCom members match that demographic. I would hope that the voters and Jimbo are wise enough to decide whether a potential arbitrator seems sufficiently emotionally mature.

2. I have read on several websites (they even gave links to block logs) of Wikipedia admins who do things like indefinitely blocking accounts who have not edited for months, there was no CheckUser anything, no reports, and the admin didn't give any reason, just put personal attacks as the block reason (e.g. saying "troll"). Basically such cases seem done beyond punative, but just out of bullying. I saw at least ten of these, but so far I can only find one here [1]. I don't feel like digging for hours, as I just want to ask your opinion of whether you support or oppose such admin activity because it's clear most support it. Anomo 12:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't feel like digging for hours either, and without doing that, I can neither agree nor disagree with your characterization, nor support or oppose any such activity. The one example you gave is of a highly abusive user who appears to have been rightfully blocked; why he wasn't community blocked in June 2005 is a good question.

3. What is your view on the current policy often called "kicking them while they're down" of deleting the user and talk pages of people who are blocked? Anomo 12:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree with your characterization. A slight correction: it is people who are banned that have this happen to their user and talk pages. This is in keeping with WP:DENY, and makes a lot of sense.

4. What is your view on the practice on Wikipedia where a person blanks out text on talk pages because the text mentioned something wrong the person did or defeated them in an argument? The text blanked usually has no reason given. When there is a reason given, it's only a fake reason. In rare cases, the text is not blanked, but the entire talk page is archived including discussions hours old, blanking it out. Anomo 12:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• What about it? Again, I disagree with your characterization. Editors are free to edit their talk pages as they see fit, with a few restrictions regarding official warnings and of course WP:POINT etc. That you "defeated someone in an argument" (and if that's important to you, you really should be some place other than Wikipedia) does not give you some form of control over another editor's user page; why should it?

I have seen where there is heated debate and someone they will archve the entire talk page of an article, including discussions hours old (sometimes minutes), just say archiving and the talk page is empty. This seems to be growing in popularity. What is your view on it? Anomo 03:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's within policy; it's more polite than saying "shut up and leave me alone". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

5. What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them? Anomo 12:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree with your characterization. Talk pages of banned editors are locked to prevent the banned user from continuing their disruptive behavior. Up until some time in 2005 (I think), blocked editors couldn't edit anything, including their talk pages; that was loosened so as to allow the blocked editor to make their own case in good faith. Once a blocked editor has demonstrated their lack of good faith, usually by continuing the same abusive behavior that got them blocked in the first place, I don't see any reason to continue providing them a platform.

6. Why do you feel in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has always sided with the admins? Anomo 12:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I do not see evidence for your characterization. It is, however, natural that the community members deemed most trustworthy and reliable by their peers -- i.e., admins -- will be seen as most trustworthy and reliable by ArbCom. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:12, 27 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 I perceive that something is broken, and it's in my capacity to fix it, I will strive to fix it.

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

• Dispassionately. But perhaps I'm missing the point of your question; I don't think there's really anything I could or would do unilaterally that would be unpopular en masse.

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.

WP:V WP:BLP WP:NOT WP:NPOV WP:NOR WP:C WP:RS WP:N

• Hmm. I can group how I notice where articles differ from policy. NPOV, NOR, and NOT are probably the quickest things I'll notice if they're broken. V, C, and RS require deeper study of the article, more than a casual gloss. N varies, because often new articles are so poorly written it's unclear whether I've just never heard of this person or NOBODY has heard of this person. I haven't been paying too much attention to BLP per se, but I've a general distaste for scurrilousness, so I think perhaps I might focus more on it in the future. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss

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

• Obviously, that's a tension point. Does hooey presented as and recognized by many as fact get presented by Wikipedia as fact? An SPOV encyclopedia would simply say "this is hooey"; Wikipedia has to say "Scientists say this is hooey". SPOV would also require a lot more argumentation; NPOV means we can just prevent a point of view as belonging to its adherants and leave it at that, though the temptation to argue seems irresistable. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Carcharoth

Having ran in the January 2006 ArbCom election, have you learned anything from that election that you'll be applying to this election? Also, how have things changed since last time? How have you improved as a candidate? Carcharoth 14:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think I've improved as a candidate. I missed the cut last time by a percent or so, and was passed over when Jimbo made the final cut in favor of three standing arbitrators who he wanted to keep on the committee. I was involved in one particular dispute which probably cost me a dozen votes; on the other hand, it may have also gained me votes, too. Point is, I'm the same person now as I was then, with the same things to offer, and the same attitudes; hopefully at least some of the editors who voted against me last time will take a second look and discount the one particular situation that led them to cast a negative vote. One of my positive votes said, "Please be more civil when making ArbCom decisions", and I think that was a good point -- I'd necessarily do exactly that. Thanks for the good questions; I'll be happy to clarify details if needed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the previous dispute covered by these links:[2][3]? As someone who was around, but not voting in the January 2006 elections (and thus unaware of this), those diffs certainly made me raise my eyebrows.

• Do you think candidates should be completely honest and provide such details in their initial statement, rather than have the details uncovered later?
• Do you think such incidents should not be held over a users head for all time? If not, why not? How long is long enough for such actions to be quietly forgotten?
• If an ArbCom case involved a user who had made a one-off mistake with on other stains on their character, would you be inclined to discount the one-off mistake when considering the current case?

Thanks. Carcharoth

Yeah, that's what that was about. I wouldn't characterize my statement as a "mistake"; I was furious, but I knew exactly what I was saying, and I knew that it would have repercussions, and I knew saying the truth there -- and, incidentally, I still stand by my sentiment, even though the words were intemperate -- would cost me should I enter into Wikipedia's political arena. Would I do it again the same way? I don't think so; once was enough. (Just because I'm correct about something doesn't give me the right to act like a jerk.) As far as discounting "one-off mistakes", I'd do that anyway; if I'm looking at the behaviour of another editor, I'll be looking at their overall patterns much more than at individual incidents; if there's no pattern, there's no reason to worry about an anomaly. And I think "considering patterns" is pretty much the answer to the second question, too; a one time screwup would have to be pretty darn serious (oh, like deliberate forgery of editor's signatures, for a current example) to mandate more than a "what the heck was that?" response. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A more impersonal form of the above question:

• I have been perusing the block logs of candidates in these elections. Do you think looking at past incidents and disputes documented in a block log are a good way of assessing a candidate? Carcharoth 00:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I dunno. I've been thinking about that today also. The problem is, you can show up on the block log for a wide range of reasons, including totally innocuous things such as testing how blocking works, less innocuous things 3rr violations (doing it once, no big deal, that's one way to learn how things work around here) or the isolated personal attack; or heavier things like WP:POINT, vandalism, and so on. So the way the table on the talk page looks right now, there's really no distinction between, say, Voice of All's block (it looks like he accidentally blocked himself instead of someone else), Uninvited Company's tests, my own single personal attack, several editors' 3RRs, or one that has blocks for trollery and vandalism. But I see that's not your question; and an informed editor/voter will look at the full logs, not just the fact that there's one mentioned in the table, assuming they find the table at all. Block logs are just one tool in the assessment. Again, look for patterns. A candidate for Arbcom (or for admin) that has a slough of 3RR violations might not seem to be a good role model, and probably has sufficient problems with rules and authority that they might not be a suitable candidate. Rather, someone who has strong opinions and a strong personality who has not acquired a slough of personal attack blocks is comporting himself quite well, and showing sufficient maturity to work in an arbitrating role. That last sentence can be interpreted freely as me patting myself on the back, in case it's not obvious. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Three questions from Carcharoth

These are copies of questions initially asked by John Reid.

Q: 1. Who are you?

A: See my user page.

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

A: I'm 52.

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

A: The scope of the Arbitration Committee is defined as of a general rather than of a specific nature. Though the Arbitrators will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes, the Arbitrators will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus. So once I'm on the committee, it's really up to the community to determine whether ArbCom should look outside user conduct. Sometimes issues need to be arbitrated that are disputes between groups, not individuals, and they are based upon different opinions of policy. ArbCom seems to me to be the only body (other than the Board) empowered to resolve such disputes; so yes, ArbCom (given the current structure at Wikipedia) must necessarily arbitrate non-user-conduct issues. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Badbilltucker

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

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

• I'd say the odds are pretty low that I'd bug out. I'm retired, so I have few obligations other than familial (my wife approves of my candidacy). I think the only thing that would get me to resign (other than personal emergency) would be disrespectful treatment from ArbCom as a whole, and that seems highly unlikely to me, from what I've seen of ArbCom. As far as the second question goes, I have trouble envisioning how such a situation might arise, since the only "decision" I can really make as an ArbCom member is to vote aye or nay on a clause in a proposed decision. Am I missing something here? Another question above dealt with a similar topic.

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?

• I would strive to educate my colleagues so their judgment could be relied upon. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Jossi

I appreciate your volunteering for this position. I know that it is not an easy job.

Some questions for you, and good luck with your nomination:

1. Do you believe that as Wikipedia continues to grows in significance and substance, we will need to assert restrictions based on value judgments made by the ArbCom about the ability of users to edit without bias?

• We already do that. Or are you suggesting that we might pre-filter editors based upon their adherance to some or another belief system (like, for example, banning Creationists from editing Evolution, or banning scientists from editing Religion)? If that's your question, the answer is no -- WP:AGF pretty much prevents such a practice, and should.

2. Do you believe that the current WP content policies, the editing process, and the strength of the community, are sufficient to address these issues in order to reduce bias in articles? If this is not your view, what should be modified in the policy of WP:AFG, and the current Wikipedia motto Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

• "Anyone can edit" is theoretical, not practical. We prevent people who cannot abide by our policies from editing, and will continue to do so.

3. In a recent wikiEN-I en posting (8/19/2006), Jimmy Wales wrote:

"Most of us do care passionately about the ethics of what we are doing, and how it affects people. Indeed, for most of us, it is part of the very fabric of the reasons we participate. We are human beings, trying to do something good, not automatons puking out soulless "content" [...] we are good, we are ethical, we are trying to produce something important in the world that matters to the world, and we want to do it the right way."

3a. Are you in agreement with that statement?

• What's not to agree with? I think most people are good, and I've lived my life by that light; if I didn't think so, I'd go live in a cave -- Wikipedia would be the least of my worries.

3b. If you do, what would you do as an ArbCom member to bring that understanding to bear in our project?

• I'd support good over evil. It's sometimes more work than the opposite, but the results are worth it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from AnonEMouse

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

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

1. A current Arbcom case, Wikipedia: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?
   • This one's delightfully tricky. WP:AP#Scope says that ArbCom's authority encompasses anything the community says it encompasses (with the exception of the Board). But what "the community says" means means "what has gained consensus". Does ArbCom have the power to determine whether a policy or action has gained consensus? Well, has the community reached a consensus that it has that power? In an ideal world, the answer would be that ArbCom does not need this power: either consensus is obvious, or there is no consensus. (Of course, in an ideal world, we wouldn't be misusing "consensus", since in real life it generally is understood as something much closer to "unanimity".) However, it seems that ArbCom must have this power, since the basis of ArbCom's decisions have to be Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and those policy and guidelines are either handed down from above or are themselves the result of consensus decision-making. When ArbCom acts according to a policy, it is saying that it accepts that policy as the consensus of the Wikipedia community. In summary, yes, ArbCom has this power, and in the absence of some other body whose job it is to determine consensus or lack thereof, ArbCom must have this power.
2. Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Wikipedia: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?
   • Consensus again. Off the top of my head, I think ArbCom should not have this power in general; if there is a dispute between two Bureaucrats, I don't see any reason ArbCom shouldn't be able to help resolve it. Otherwise, I think ArbCom should stay out of it; Bureaucrat power doesn't go through ArbCom, it comes directly from the aforementioned Above.
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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?
   • I agree. A large pile of brownie points should rightfully offset a small pile of rabbit raisins.
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 Wikipedia - 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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.
   • Work is work. Without good article writers, we'll have lousy articles. Without good admins, we'll have lousy articles -- for different reasons. I'm not sure what the relevance of featured articles is or their count is, but I don't participate in the "featured article" polls and discussions, so it's possible I miss your point. Being an admin doesn't make one a superior member of the community; nor does writing a featured article. There's no metric by which one can compare the value of the types of contributions. I would make a point of not attempting to weigh one against the other.
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.)
   • My first inclination is to say that, as a programming professional, I long ago learned to determine what tasks need to be undertaken, and which tasks can be profitably avoided; studying ArbCom decisions simply to fish for a point of disagreement would generally fall into the latter category. What's more, 20-20 hindsight gives one an unfair advantage. For example, I spoke out during Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby saying that the proposed decision was too lenient, that the editor in question would certainly continue his bad behavior and that it was just a waste of time to do anything short of banning him completely; he's since been banned completely. On the other hand, I feel the remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 were peculiar and not really appropriate; banning someone from "commenting on an admin's actions" struck me as downright bizarre, even given the subject's long history of annoying behavior - this seemed like all parties were acting out some self-fulfilling prophesies. ("You think our decisions are arbitrary? I'll show you arbitrary." Kinda like when my Dad threatened to give me something to cry about.) But, I was neither privy to all the conversations nor a target of the subjects annoying behavior, so I'm operating with both incomplete information and a different point of view. I've said elsewhere that if I was going to be a rubber stamp, I'd not be wasting my time with ArbCom; what would be the point?
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?
   • He's good at it. If he wants to keep doing it, and nobody else does, fine. It's a particular skill, one that I imagine his legal background makes a natural fit. (As a programming professional, I long ago learned that if someone else wants to do the grunt work, and they're doing a good job of it, let them. I was often that grunt.)
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? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
   • I think if someone is elected to ArbCom they should be given admin privileges, whether they like it or not. It's not like having that bit sets forces them to do anything; it's just a key to the mop closet. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Dfrg.msc

In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• More than two decades of experience in leadership and moderation roles in online communities. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting in the elections

Hello, the ArbCom elections are coming up very soon and I was wondering if you would give your public assurance not to vote or comment on other candidates. I think this will help keep friction to a minimum. Imagine how ugly it would be if two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other both ended up sitting on the ArbCom together. I think, in the best interests of decorum, these kind of conflict of interest issues should be avoided. Do you agree? --Cyde Weys 20:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• No. I will give my public assurance not to attack other candidates, as is required by WP:NPA and WP:CIV; easy enough, since I'm not that kind of person. I hope people who disagree with each other, even vehemently, end up together on ArbCom; if they can't work together in spite of disagreeing, then the voters have perhaps made a mistake in judgment; but voting or not voting in the elections would hardly make a difference in that regard. If there had been an existing policy disenfranchising candidates, I don't know whether I'd have placed my own hat in the ring. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Hello, I'd say that you ultimately reserve the right to excercise your vote. It should be already understood by all respected and high-esteemed candidates that by the end of this election, there should be no hard feelings regardless of supports or opposes. As from my observations at the January elections, hard feelings usually come not from the votes, but from the comments that are associated with the votes. Henceforth, I think restraining to comment in your votes is the best way to go. - Good luck and best regards, Mailer Diablo 22:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've restored this comment; Cyde, please do not edit other editor's questions and comments on this page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

@ Thank you sire. - Mailer Diablo 05:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from TheronJ

1. Based on your background, any prior conflicts, etc., are there any areas or topics where you anticipate receiving requests for recusal, or where you might consider self-recusal? If so, what are those areas and how would you decide whether to recuse? Thanks, TheronJ 02:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I do have history with a couple of users that would lead me to recuse myself from cases in which they were primary parties. I won't name them in public; bad manners. I'd probably recuse myself from cases involving articles about businesses and people with whom I have connections; for example, if something came up regarding eBay or Autodesk, I might have a good reason to step back. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Gwern

1. In the current roster of votes, Cyde emphasizes strongly your experience moderating the early electronic community the WELL, and you mention it in your statement as well; what did you do at the WELL that was so formative or important, and how does it bolster your case that you should be appointed an arbitrator? --Gwern (contribs) 04:34 6 December 2006 (GMT)
   • Let me first describe a bit of the structure of the WELL, for those unfamiliar with it. The WELL consists of hundreds of "conferences", each with its own subject area. Some have a whole lot of traffic, some just a trickle. General public conferences each have conference "hosts", who are responsible for the upkeep, and to a great degree, the tone of the conferences. Different conferences sometimes have different policies, relating to things like how on-topic comments are expected to be, what the civility rules are, and so on. I was the host of several of the busiest conferences: Current Events, Politics, and War. Partly by accident of inheritance (I didn't start any of these conferences), and partly by design and an experiment, the civility policies in these conferences varied. The War conference was very strict; no harsh words were tolerated at all. The Politics conference was "no personal attacks" land; though there might be heated argument, they were civil heated arguments most of the time. The Current Events conference -- the busiest of the three, I think -- was a free-fire, "if you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen" zone. Many of the same people read and wrote all three conferences. The Politics conference was the biggest challenge, and the most successful (I think) for me. I'd often stick my nose in to lower the heat level when an otherwise interesting discussion was verging into a fight. The best way to do this was often to listen to both sides, and then interject calm, factual argument, to gently judo the disputants into calming down. I managed to do this gaining the respect of the community, and resentment and dislike from only a very few members.
   • Now, the actual work doesn't map all that strongly to what I'd be doing as an arbitrator. There wasn't any aspect of adjudication; but what it was about was community maintenance and community building. Keeping my conferences on an even keel (and even the free fire zone required flame reduction at times) required attention and care -- especially since the WELL is not an anonymous community; these were all real people with real faces and real feelings. And that's where I think my WELL experience really comes into play; though we all must be faceless when it comes to Wikipedia articles, we all have faces and feelings when it comes to creating Wikipedia articles. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from NinaEliza 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. As concisely as possible, please explain how you would continue with your stated commitment to the ArbCom process as an ordinary editor, should you NOT be "elected". Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

My reasons for this question are three-fold.

First, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's a powerful statement that has many meanings. It means that, among other things, any user has the power to do pretty much anything, should they wish it. I submit my own user contributions as evidence.

Second, one thing that's a constant is Wikipedia's GNU License. As an online-encyclopedia, the history of everything, every edit, every comment, every misdeed, every injury, and every achievement are readily available to anyone who wish to look at it. All they need is a computer, frankly, and they can dig away.

The third is merely a perception. Power is great, but when the entire history of your actions are utterly transparent, and anyone can do virtually anything on their first day here, it's really just a big illusion. I further submit that the more "power" you think you have, the more you have to "lose". You also have to more "work" and have less "fun".

• I'd keep doing exactly what I have been doing.

2. What do you think about this "election"? What do you think about your fellow "candidates"? What do you think about "campaign banners" on an online, open-source encyclopedia? What do you think about your own "campaign"? Please answer as concisely as possible, preferably in 100 words or less. For reference, please see this: [WP:Wikipedia is not a Democracy]]?

• Well, it's not an election per se; it's an approval poll, with final selection being done entirely by one person. I do not have a "campaign"; I've got a questions page, a vote page, and a little box on my user page mentioning that I'm in the running. I don't see what the relationship is between "campaign banners" and the fact that this is an open-source encyclopedia; the main space is the encylopedia, and everything else is here for the purpose of maintaining the encyclopedia, which includes the selection of ArbCom. My opinions about my fellow candidates are my own business until I cast my votes, should I choose to do so.

3. What, specifically have you done wrong in the past as an editor, community member, administrator, and human being trying to create a world-wide online open source encyclopedia on Wikipedia? For reference, see my own user contributions. Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

• I was incivil to an editor who was making a friend's life miserable. On occasion I've been more snappish than is necessary. I can't think of anything I've done wrong as an administrator.

4. Do you apologize for your actions, and who are you apologising to, specifically? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

• When I get snappish, I generally apologize to the target and to the audience in general.

5. Hypothetically, how would you deal with an explosion of editors and users behaving very badly because Wikipedia has just aquired a bigger "stick". For reference please see Soft Power.

• I don't know to what you are referring; perhaps you might explain the issue more precisely and then I'll be able to provide an answer.

6. What, exactly do you want do on Wikipedia? Why did you come here, and why did you stay for more than a minute? What's fun for you here? What makes you happy here? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

• I'm helping create this free encyclopedia. I came here as a reader, and I stayed because it was fun to participate in the process. For whatever reason, vandal fighting is fun for me, so that's mostly what I do. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from LoveLight

Would you kindly evaluate and/or comment article 911. As a reader do you find that piece factual and accurate? As an editor do you find it satisfying (with regards to our fundamental Wiki policies and guidelines)? As future arbitrator how do you feel about status quo imposed on that and similar "ever burning" editorials? Lovelight 10:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• The community has worked that out pretty well without the intervention of ArbCom, so my opinion of the article (in relation to my possible role on ArbCom) is pretty much irrelevant. Having been in NYC on 9/11 -- less than three miles from ground zero -- I'm not sure my perspective is sufficiently neutral to be able to arbitrate a case involving that article fairly. I do think the article is properly conservative -- it gives about the right amount of weight to conspiracy theories, despite the ongoing attempts to give them undue weight in the article itself. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank You, You have my support. Lovelight 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Zoe

What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've not taken the time to study the mess in detail; that's one of the unpleasant tasks I'll get to do if I'm selected, but I'm enjoying the privilege of not doing so right now. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)