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)[reply]
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(talk) 04:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
Questions from east718
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))[reply]
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.718at 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.718at 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)[reply]
Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 04:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [1][2][3][4])
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)[reply]
Questions from Majorly
These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for your time. Majorly (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A wheel war is when administrators (a) undo each others' administrative actions (blocks, deletions, page protections) and (b) such actions are not part of the normal "friction" of the site. This latter quality is a bit difficult to define, but suffice it to say that in the normal workings of Wikipedia, administrators do undo each others actions (anytime someone unprotects a page is an example of undo another admin's actions). A wheel war is something that goes above and beyond this. Raul654 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Sean William
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)[reply]
What is your opinion about revert parole (1RR limitations, etc.)?
(See my answer below Raul654 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
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)[reply]
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, — xaosfluxTalk 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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!)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Question two: Does Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
Supplementary question - can you be more specific re "fairness to the accused"? Thanks. Wanderer57 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia channels (ie. #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-admins) should be admissible in arbitration cases where it is directly relevant to the dispute at hand?
This is a very difficult question - probably the toughest on this entire page. Using IRC logs in arbitration brings up issues relating to data integrity (in that there is no definitive source of what is and is not said; someone could change the logs to say whatever he wants before sending them to us) and privacy (in that people are not supposed to be posting logs from the channels) However, to deny that stuff goes on in IRC channels that is relavant to later arbitration is simply to deny reality. So yes, I think there should be limited circumstances under which such evidence is considered. Raul654 (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
b) Do you believe the Arbitration Committee has the jurisdiction to sanction users in these channels when it relates to Wikipedia disruption? If not, should it?
"Sanction them in those channels" - No, I do not believe the IRC channels are within the actionable purview of the arbcom (that is to say, we can observe what occurs in off-wiki places, but we can't really do anything about 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?
(No answer required Raul654 (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
2: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they?
(I am not really sure how this questions is different from #1 above. Raul654 (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
3: Are Wikipedians, in particular administrators, required to answer to the Committee for their activites outside English Wikipedia (ie. on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wikipedia-related websites including The Wikipedia Review, conduct linked to Wikipedia etc.). Should they be? If so, should the Arbitration Committee have intervened in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision?
To some extent, yes. EK's case provides an absolutely crystal clear example why we should (He offered to post deletion revisions to WR - revisions that had been deleted because they contained private information.) I believe, given his history of commenting without first learning about a situation, that desysopping was the correct decision. I can't really comment on the Gracenotes situation - I don't know what happened there (and the RFA page you linked to is - literally - 50 printed pages long) Raul654 (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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?
Obviously it's difficult to speculate without knowing all the particular of the case. For the sake of ease, let's refer to the OTRS admin as Allen, the non-OTRS admin as Bob, and the third reprotecting admin as Charlie. I think in this case, both Allen and Bob are probably at fault -- Allen for not clearly explaining himself to Bob (otherwise a wheel war like this would probably not have taken place), and Bob for not deferring to Allen (who, having OTRS access, had more complete information than Bob - a fact Bob should have been aware of). I think, though, that a greater share of the blame falls on Bob. Raul654 (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5: What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war?
When users undo each others' privileged actions, that may constitute a wheel war. I say may because there may be cases where they are undoing each others' actions that, in my opinion, do not constitute a wheel war. I can't come up with a good qualifier off the top of my head though. Raul654 (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? ZZClaims~ Evidence 15:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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(talk) 23:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why haven't you answered my question yet, or a few other questions from other editors? Wikidudeman(talk) 21:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(See my response to jd2718's second question below. Raul654 02:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
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.
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
I suppose what it means by "involved". In the case you are referring to - the THF case (discuss extensively further down this page) - I was involved with THF on a different set of pages. He and Atren (his proxy) have alleged my involvement, but this is false. -- Raul654 (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the case. I didn't want to specify and start the arguments from those involved all over again but I guess that is out the window now. I would consider being "involved" as acting as an admin in handling the dispute to try to resolve or make a judgement before it goes to arbcom. If you were just acting as an editor in discussing or debating a subject with someone who becomes an arbcom party then that might not be as big a deal. MrMurph101 (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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-Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia (IRC, instant messageners) have a proper use? Do you think that media that should not be ported over to Wikipedia (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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia-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)[reply]
Provided they aren't being used to do bad things, I don't have any problem with alternative accounts. As I said elsewhere on this page, I have several myself. Raul654 23:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care for them very much. It's mostly a collection of banned users whose perspectives are usually wildly divorced from reality. Raul654 23:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Coren
Part of the Wikipedia 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(talk) 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Part of the Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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(talk) 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In real life, courts generate case law, which (in essence) fills in the blanks between written legislative law. The problem on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
Questions from jd2718
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 Wikipedia. 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I support, IRL, term limits. Why should I not be concerned about them for ArbCom? Jd2718 12:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia as a whole renders term limits more-or-less unnecessary. Raul654 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Accusations of admin abuse get thrown around a lot, but I think actual abuse is pretty rare. Raul654 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Wikipedia 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?
I think there should be a mechanism for removing arbitrators from the arbcom when there are serious issues with him/her continuing. At the same time, being on the Arbcom should not be a popularity contest. I think that whatever form the mechanism takes, it should be designed to ensure that it's not used as a weapon against unpopular arbitrators. -- Raul654 (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Wikipedia. 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?
No, I would not. As someone who has many permissions and tends to go active and inactive on them from time to time, I don't think inactivity with a particular permission is a reason to lose it. (General inactivity is a different story, though.) -- Raul654 (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There have been repeated proposals to split the arbcom and divide the caseload. I don't like these because it effectively excludes people who have valuable insight. Also, re-grouping has a great deal of overhead which may or may not be desirable.
One thing I've noticed is that with all the current and former arbitrators, the proportion of time spent communicating (on the arbitration mailing list) has become ever greater - too many people talking to each other, not enough getting signal getting through. Therefore, I'm not fond of increasing the number of arbirators. However, I have an open mind in these matters, and I'm willing to take a wait-and-see approach. Raul654 (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I wrote a substantial portion of David Shankbone/THF. Raul654 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mahalo for such a quick response. Off to read a bit. --Ali'i 17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you for such an honest response. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Piotrus
In the few ArbCom cases I have watched in the past you were inactive. Do you think this will change in the future?
I won't deny it - lately, I've been very busy both on the site and off. Much of my time was taken up by the expanding size of FAC (which I have recently taken steps to remedy) If re-elected, I hope to be able to spend as much time arbitrating as I have in the past. Raul654 06:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?
In a perfect world, yes. We don't live in a perfect world. Arbitrators are volunteers here, just like everyone else. They have jobs, lives, etc - so it's to be expect that arbitrators will not participate in every case. Raul654 06:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?
I'm not sure what you mean by "discussion pages". The workshop, however, is most assuredly optional, and there is absolutely no expectation than an arbitrator must participate there. Raul654 06:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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?
I think people should be judged on the basis of their contribution to the encyclopedia. A newcomer who causes problems and hasn't contributed to the encyclopedia shouldn't expect the same consideration as someone who has. But I'm not going to lay out a formula for judging good/bad behavior and editing. Raul654 (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?
The 3rr isn't for civility issue per se, but to prevent unlimited revert warring. Admittedly, as I said below, it is an imperfect tool but better than the alternative. Civility, on the other, is subjective and not all that easy to enforce. (How do you force someone to be civil?) Raul654 06:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia 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)[reply]
I'm not an attorney, so I'm not qualified to answer these questions. Raul654 21:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Jossi
What is your opinion on the use of multiple accounts in Wikipedia, as it relates to the recent discussions on the subject? ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.)
1) To my knowledge, all arbcom decisions are public - be it decisions in cases, or for checkuser/oversight permissions, etc. We don't have any private decisions. The rationale and evidence for those decisions is also usually made public, although not always. I'm assuming that - the rationale and evidence - are what you are referring to. And yes, decisions should be regarded as authoritative, whether or not the rationales and evidence were made public. As for obligations of disclosure (where privacy is not involved) - I think we should strive to make as much of our rationales and evidence public as possible, but I think it's possible there are reasons (other than privacy) that we might want to keep stuff secret (example: methods used to track down sockpuppets).
2) Yes, I do occasionally find myself in the minority. When I first joined the committee (during the old, bad days when getting anything done was nearly impossible) I was the "hanging judge" (Jimbo's words), pushing for stricter remendies that the committee was handing out. I feel that I have been vindicated in this regard. If I had to pick a issues that divide the arbcom, one example I'd select is how we treat some of our best article contributors who might not espouse popular opinions (for example, I think what happened with user:Worldtraveller was an outrage). Another example is how we deal with experts -- I think the arbcom should give them more support in dealing with POV pushers (WMC and global warming being a very good example which jumps to mind). Raul654 (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I removed the tag once, from an article you were involved in a dispute on because it appeared to be drive-by tagging. To wit: The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. --Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. Many articles get tagged this way, and I remove many tags for this reason. If I had known that that edit would later be used to accuse me of being involved in the dispute, I wouldn't have made it. -- Raul654 (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that you thought it was a "drive-by tagging" is wildly implausible given the substantial discussion of the reason for the tag on the talk page, and the fact that there was a pending RFC where every neutral commenter who participated agreed there was a legitimate NPOV dispute. You were a participant in the dispute and you took the side of the minority of people who did not think there was a legitimate NPOV dispute, and then sought to arbitrate a case against the person who disagreed with you as part of your POV-pushing on this site. -- Evidence storage (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, because he wasn't the only one who removed it - you were edit-warring over that tag, and you were the only one who was supporting its placement there. The Talk page discussion was always addressing your unreasonable requests, which was detailed by User:Smb in evidence at the ArbCom, and the reason why every Arbitrator voted that you were problematically editing, except the one, Fred Bauder. --DavidShankbone 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
False. I reviewed the evidence page carefully and cited parts of it in the proposed decision. -- Raul654 (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Can you please cite the specific diffs related to Jackass that were problematic? You have repeatedly raised the the documentaries article as evidence against THF, but you have never cited the precise diffs that were abusive. And yes, I did ask you this during the case, but you never responded. Certainly, you didn't cite any mainspace edits related to the documentary issue in your finding, which I disputed (see below). -- ATren (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not about to relitigate the entire case on this page, but this edit justifying the use of his original research list of documentaries is pretty indicative of the pattern. The fact that it is not in the main space does not invalidate it. -- Raul654 (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indicative of the pattern? What pattern? Talk space edits? I asked you to supply an abusive mainspace edit regarding the documentaries issue. You supplied a civil talk page diff. Are you saying you supported a topic ban purely based on civil talk page debate? Am I to understand that it is a COI to merely discuss an issue on a talk page? -- ATren (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm not about to relitigate the entire case on this page. Yes, I saw your evidence. It was, frankly, unconvincing. THF did make some main space edits, he made a lot of talk page edits (attempting to bias the article uses his own original research). The fact that mos of his disruption was on talk pages does not excuse it. -- Raul654 (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, to be clear, the problem was not COI, but "disruption"? Is civil talk page debate considered disruption? And if it was disruptive debate and not COI, then why wasn't Shankbone subject to the same sanction, since he was at least as disruptive as THF? Or are you claiming that it is COI to merely discuss an issue civilly on a talk page? Which is it. Please clarify. -- ATren (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, or what, but I'll summarize from the beginning: (a) He works for an organization that takes money to lobby against the things he was editing articles on. That's a conflict of interest. (b) His edits - some to the main space, many to talk pages - attempted to bias our articles in favor of those same interests that fund his employer. That's a conflict of interest, and POV editing. (c) In the course of that editing, among many other things, he promulgated a list of highest grossing documentaries (through his employer) that included a number of non-documentaries like Jackass. He then tried to have this list referenced in numerous articles. That's original research, biased editing, a conflict of interest. (d) Put it all together, and that comes under the general aegis of "disruption". As far as civility, nobody has ever alleged he was incivil, so I don't know where you are getting that from. I hope this clears things up for you. -- Raul654 (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raul, I'm not being obtuse, I'm asking you to clarify your reasoning in that case. I asked you to produce the specific mainspace diff in the "Jackass" debate which showed abuse. You produced a civil talk page diff. Which leads me to believe that you advocated a topic ban for an ideological opponent based solely on a civil talk page debate. Is your position that his COI violation was on the talk page, or did I miss the mainspace edit where he promoted his jackass theory (which, for whatever it's worth, I thought was bogus from day one and I would have reverted if he had added it) ATren (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --DavidShankbone 19:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence storage has been blocked as it is a SPA of THF originally meant for Arbcom participation and was being used to participate in the project after THF having officially "left". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The block was non-controversial - they just told him politely to go back to using his THF account now that the case is closed. ATren (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was controversial, just explaining why the Evidence account has suddenly stopped editing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I was thinking in relation to two Wikipedia areas:
Checkuser, which is usually performed via WP:RFCU after stringent investigation. However, those with permission could perform a Checkuser on someone with no record of (a) whom (b) why (c) when (d) the quality of the information returned.
Community sanction noticeboard in which editors have been "voted" off Wikiepdia in hours with little evidence and due process, compared to Arbitration where due process is quite thorough by all concerned. --Raevaen (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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?
Sorry to butt in here but this has become quite weird: for the record, I am not nor ever have been employed by FC William M. Connolley (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chip Berlet is employed by the political advocacy group Political Research Associates to write about the Christian right and extremist groups. He edits Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Aside from the fact that your facts are wrong (a minority of AEI's funding is from industry, and industry doesn't dictate any AEI results, as demonstrated by the complaints I got over Calfee's recent WSJ op-ed on patents), you're begging the question: Fenton Communications is paid by unions and trial lawyers and left-wing supporters to create anti-corporate talking points. Environmental Media Services is run by the former head of the left-wing EDF and "deep lobbies" for particular economic policies completely divorced from science. (And I am an acknowledged expert on legal issues, so I fail to see the relevance of Connolley's expertise (which I don't dispute) to whether he has a COI.) Realclimate makes political posts and hosts political discussion that have nothing to do with scientific research. What standards do you use to determine whether one's employer disqualifies one from Wikipedia? -- Evidence storage (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(A) I get asked to recuse myself all the time. That I'm asked does not mean there's any actual basis for it. (B) As I have already said on this page, I was not involved in edit warring. I removed a tag from an article in which you were involved. -- Raul654 (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and (C) I didn't delete it. I moved a huge off-topic section to the talk page. -- Raul654 (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth question
Why did you participate in an arbitration over a content dispute in which you had edit-warred, when you were explicitly asked to recuse yourself? -- Evidence storage (talk) -- Evidence storage (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The premise of the question is legitimate. The answer is either "I did" or "I didn't." If you clearly did, the question is now "Why?" ~ UBeR (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions. Raul654 (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sixth question
You state that discussing a proposed edit on a talk-page is "problematic" meriting sanction, even though WP:COIC explicitly tells editors to propose edits on talk pages. Are there any other behaviors that you believe merit sanctions even though they are explicitly condoned in existing guidelines and policies? -- Evidence storage (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seventh question
You say it is "original research" to make a proposal on a talk page to cite to a published article, even though WP:OR applies only to material that is not published. Is it "original research" to argue vociferously on a talk page for inclusion of a self-written Wikinews article? -- Evidence storage (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, we generally do not consider Wikinews a reliable source for the purposes of citing. You published through your employer a list (of highest grossing documentaries) with transparent falsities, and then argued we should cite it in numerous articles. Yes, that strikes me as original research, regardless of what the exact wording of the policy happened to be that day. Ditto for someone trying to cite Wikinews. -- Raul654 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the Wikinews articles are not OR in the way you mean them, but are in fact interviews with notable people, like Presidential candidates Senator Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo, ACLU President Nadine Strossen, writers Augusten Burroughs and Gay Talese, amongst others. What is cited is their words. What you did with your article was fabricated a documentary list, had your employer put it up on their website, and then start citing to yourself as an expert of film documentaries. There is a big difference between that, and quoting a Presidential candidate who did an interview with Wikinews. --DavidShankbone 22:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a difference between talk pages and main space. Cool HandLuke 03:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Atren
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)[reply]
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. Evidence presented on the evidence page are what I use in formulating my decisions. Arbitrators are under no obligation to use the workshop pages (and never have been). -- Raul654 (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the side effects of handling Wikipedia's toughest disputes is that a few individuals whose actions did not withstand scrutiny bear grudges. Occasionally those individuals manage to bend the ear of an upstanding Wikipedian. Cherry picked evidence and prejudicial candidate questions are hallmarks of such occasions. So I'm giving you an open forum: is there anything you'd like to convey to Wikipedian voters who haven't followed these issues in intricate detail? DurovaCharge! 22:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this question - I think it bears asking. I am not going to throw any stones or pick out any individuals, but I think it's worth saying that it's possible for someone with an axe to grind to ask biased questions that, regardless of my answer, give others a bad impression. In such cases, it's very easy to overlook the forest for the trees; to mis-characterize my overall actions based on a few select incidents (for which the presentation is biased or incomplete). Raul654 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you recuse from cases involving global warming deniers given your history of demanding topic bans for such users? Cool HandLuke 03:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on the specifics of the case, but if it involved global warming and related articles, then yes, I would probably have to recuse myself because I edit there a great deal. Raul654 (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Quite tall man
(1) Conflicts of interest "edits are strongly discouraged", though editors are "not barred from participating in articles". Is this saying that a potential COI is no problem, it's only actual edits which may be a problem?
This question is effectively impossible to answer unless you have a good working definition for what does and does not constitute a of interest - which I have not seen. Generally, we're open to anyone using the talk pages; less so to main space edits by someone with a COI. (Where, as I have already said, COI is a nebulous undefined term) Raul654 (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(2) Does every published author/expert in their field, have a potential conflict of interest in their field? --Quite tall man (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no, a thousand times no. We do not want to discourage qualified people from contributing to articles in their field. That's the LAST thing we should be doing. With that said, we have a policy against conflicts of interest to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a vehicle for propaganda and self-aggrandizement. Raul654 (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question on POV-pushing
Articles may include several points of view written by different editors. What differentiates them all from POV-pushers? If they all contribute in good faith, is calling an editor a POV-pusher an unwarranted personal attack? --82.17.196.114 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) WP:UNDUE (2) Yes, arguably, that would be a personal attack. However, I happen to agree very much with Carbonite's law that "The more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith" Raul654 (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Points of View II: When does including points of view become NPOV?
When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?--DavidShankbone 18:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept your premise that "why" has taken on a dominant role - maybe you've noticed it in the articles you edit, but I haven't noticed it in the ones I edit.
Presuming it is true, no, I do not think it is beneficial. I happen to believe in an objective reality - (for example) the earth is a round and revolves around the sun - and anyone who thinks that our Earth article should say differently (or express these as anything less than utterly accepted ideas) is wrong. Raul654 (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Marlith
What do you want Wikipedia to be ten years from now? MarlithT/C 18:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure I understand this question - in 10 years, I want to be an encyclopedia, just like it is now. Are you asking what I hope it will be like in 10 years? If so, ideally: (1) we'll have in a place a better mechanism governing policy-making; (2) hopefully we'll have an end to the internecine arguments about fair use (preferably something involving clearer objective guidelines); better mechanisms in place for getting free picture of hard-to-photograph things (Like the one I'm waiting to unveil). Raul654 (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Avruch
I know you have answered a number of questions, including a number related to COI, but I have an additional question. You have created an article about Cyclops64, a project in which you acknowledge your involvement. This article suffers from a complete lack of references and citations, yet you have not edited it substanstially since March of 2006. Can you explain your belief that your creation of this article does not represent a conflict of interest, especially considering its failure to meet WP:N and WP:RS (at least as demonstrated by the article in its current form)? AvruchTalk 22:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One point - I'm generally very impressed by your participation in this project, and have you (and others) listed on my userpage as individuals I intend to support for election to Tranche Alpha. AvruchTalk 22:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The external links section links to a published, peer-reviewed paper describing the architecture (or, to be a bit more precise, a memo which was later abridged and published in a peer reviewed conference) Therefore, your premise that it has no references is false. (2) I have already answered that at lengthRaul654 (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I assumed because there were no in-line citations or other references in the text, it was unreferenced. My comparative inexperience with Wikipedia has lead me to think of 'external links' sort of as 'Other reading.'AvruchTalk 23:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from AniMate
Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? AniMate 12:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I write a lot of articles. (Here are the ones I've written in the last 6 months) Last month, after several years of procrastinating, I rewrote from scratch our article on parallel computing (diff). I'm getting my phd in the subject, and the article really was an embarrassment - it's a lot better now. Raul654 (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Sumoeagle179
1) Arbcom is obviously demanding and time consuming. How do you see this affecting your bcat, checkuser, and FA director duties plus your PhD studies and time? This must be very time consuming. 2) I'm not sure how long you've been FA director, but I know it's been awhile. Have you considered turning this over to someone or holding an election, as is done with arbcom on a periodic basis? 3) Why have you only answered some of the questions posed here? Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1: I don't really see the amount of time required for arbcom cases increasing much beyond its current amount. (However, as I have said elsewhere on the page, the actual case work is only the tip of the iceberg) Raul654 (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2: I've been (de-facto) FA director since January 2004, and de-jure since the election in August 2004. No, I have not considered turning this over, although (after several years of requests) I decided this week to appoint a deputy to help with the FAC promotions. Raul654 (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3: I haven't answered all of them because there are quite a lot of them and there are only 24 hours in a day. I have, however, answered many questions here. Raul654 (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Cla68
So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It took some digging to answer this one. No, I am not on that list. Durova's email was forwarded to me (in my job as arbitrator) by someone other than Durova later that evening. Raul654 (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you answering this. :) Just to clarify-- which evening? The evening after the block had been applied? Or the evening after it was initially posted? --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I received it on November 22, at 2:14 PM (my above comment referring to it as evening was in error). Raul654 (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).
I didn't really follow that one closely enough to say.
a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) own articles or c) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
(a) The purpose of a wikiproject is to to give people with convergent interest in some topic a place to discuss topical meta-issues (b) no (c) Yes, within reason.
Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
I think Wikiprojects are probably the best place to determine such standards, provided they don't contravene project-wide standards (like the manual of style).
a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
(a) To crib from Justice Stewart, I can't define it but I know it when I see it. (b) IRC and newsletter are media venues. They can be used for canvassing, but by itself their use does not imply canvassing. Raul654 23:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
Again, this is difficult to generalize. I think efforts should be made to educate users who make bad-but-not-vandalism-bad edits, but not everyone is cut out to be a wikipedia contributors and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Raul654 23:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You state that your experience is a reason for editors to vote for you. Two arguments, however, exist against that statement.
More experience means more involvement in different areas, including past cases, and therefore means more bias and maybe more recusals.
Your large amount of experience is also displayed in the many other "hats" you wear. Concentration of power may be seen as a bad thing.
Why do you believe otherwise? User:Krator (tc) 14:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being involved in many different areas, contributing in many different ways, enhances my understanding of what goes on here. At the same time, the simple fact of the matter is that basically every long term contributor here has interacted with every other long term contributor at some point or another. Therefore, the standard for recusal is more than simply having exchanged words with someone before. Therefore, I don't feel that participating in a wide variety of roles is a detriment.
(Re: concentration of power - See above, my response to Addhoc) Raul654 04:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing[5]. Amongst the reasons for this suggestion is to prevent parties from revising policy in a way that favours their point of view, to prevent edit wars on active policies, and to maintain a stable policy base so that users can rest assured that they are staying within policy. Do you believe that this is a good course of action for the encyclopedia? Please respond from your perspective as a prospective member of Arbcom who would be responsible for interpreting policy (but feel free to add your opinion as an editor as well). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(See my response to CO's 2nd question, above. Let me know if there's anything I didn't cover there. Raul654 (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Questions from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
Hello Raul, thanks for devoting so much of your time to the project and for answering these annoying questions:)
1.You tout your role in crafting the 3R Rule, yet it is often held up as a prime example of a flawed policy. Indeed, many of the objections raised against it when it was first implemented have proved correct[6]:
Instead of preventing edit wars, it has only made the edit-warriors more devious and is actually used as a blunt weapon by them.
It is unevenly enforced.
It is too often invoked as a blunt weapon by admins to justify questionable blocks.
Enforcing it takes up time and effort which could be better spent elsewhere (IE Content creation/improvement, conflict mediation, sockpuppet hunting etc).
It has blacked the block logs of many long-time, upstanding Wikipedians who would otherwise have nearly or spotless records, such as yourself [7].
Given these facts, don't you think it is time to seriously consider either revising 3RR so it can only be applied to serial edit warriors, or to retire it completely until a more effective alternative can be devised?
The 3rr, for all its warts, is a LOT better than the alternative - which is to say, revert wars with literally hundreds of reverts (don't laugh: the case in which we crafted it involved the two largest revert wars in the history of Wikipedia). It's not perfect, and open to gaming (particularly by persistent edit warriors) and I'm in favor of revising it, but I am against dumping it for the simple reason that we are better having it than not. Raul654 04:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So are you implying that the current crop of admins lack the common sense and good judgement to exercise their own discretion in breaking up edit wars? That they are unable to tell the difference between a habitual edit warrior and a longstanding editor of high standing (Between an Uber and a Raul:)? That they lack they tact and diplomatic skills to mediate editing disputes between users of good faith? So they need this failed, one-size fits all policy to guide them? Surely Wikipedia can and must do better.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're putting words in my mouth. What I said was that we are better for having the 3rr rule, because without it, we would get the huge revert wars which since the introduction of the 3rr have become more-or-less unheard of (and that's a historical fact). Raul654 16:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3rr has only made edit warriors more devious and led to an explosion in the sock/meat puppet population. But for arguments' sake I'll play along with you here; Since 3RR has been so successful, then why not adapt it to other areas...for instance a 3-Personal Attack Rule (3PAr) for incivility?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Decreasing Drama seems to have become an important priority over the last few months, so how has dragging Giano before the committee, in the midst of a seemingly opened and shut case[8], helped to lessen teh drama?
Wanting to decrease drama does not mean we ignore it when it happens. (Or, to put it another way -- using your logic, the arbcom should never take a case, because that simply serves to increase the drama) Giano, by his own admission, choose to involve himself in the case. I don't think it helps Wikipedia for the arbcom to turn a blind eye to such things.
The Arbcom creates enough drama of its own without any help from Giano. This makes TWICE that he has had his name tacked onto closed, or nearly closed, cases with which he was only marginally involved. To my logic, and in the view of many, it appears that certain members of the Arbcom (Not you of course...see below:) are making a concerted effort to intimidate him into silence and sheepish conformity...that's BAAAAAD.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to take that up with them. Raul654 17:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now don't get me wrong - I've been one of Giano's staunchest supporters on the arbcom in both the current and previous cases. (An "enabler" is how someone else referred to it) I also happen to like Giano - I think he does lots of good work. He also happens to be right about these things most of the time. But there is no denying that anytime he gets involved in a dispute, he dramatically (and intentionally) ratchets up the drama level, and I think that's destructive. Raul654 04:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Sir, and you are to be commended for this. But what you say above applies equally well, if not more so, to some of his prominent foes... and we don't see their names dragged before the committee, unless, of course, it is to express its gratitude towards them. I've known Giano now for over two years (that's more than 2 decades in Wikitime:) and I've come to the opinion that he does not actively court "drama" or controversy, they find him! Time and again he has shown or expressed the desire to simply write quality articles on obscure cultural and historical topics. Yet when he sees an injustice or something he regards as wrong, he openly and passionately denounces it. In this case with VERY good reason. If Durova had not done the right thing and resigned she most surely would have been de-opped. Giano violated no policy, except some unwritten one on sooper sekret evidence, which is ridiculous considering this so-called evidence is now all over the tubes. He creates and tries to correct far more than he destroys. Wikipedia needs MORE Gianos!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote two things you said: (A) I've come to the opinion that he does not actively court "drama" or controversy, they find him! (B) When he sees an injustice or something he regards as wrong, he openly and passionately denounces it. I agree with B. And because I do, I cannot agree with A - when Giano perceives an injustice, he actively seeks to intervene in the conflict. They don't "find" him - he tries to find them. Raul654 16:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is having a passion for justice and fair play a bad thing? I think that is a desirable trait to have, especially in an Arb:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Besides serving as fodder for off-wiki critics and making Giano into more of a martyr/hero than he is already, do you think that any punitive actions taken against him might also have a chilling effect on whistle blowers and other on-wiki critics?
4. How important do you think it is for Wikipedia to have an independent judiciary?
Independent of whom? When used to describe branches of government, "independent" means independent of each other. I don't see any Wikipedia analog for any other branch of government. Raul654 04:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Have my uniform dry cleaned and back on my desk after the press leaves!"An Independent judiciary is one which can decide cases impartially based upon evidence, arguments and the law without the undo influence of political, popular or private pressures. As far as independent of whom, we both know the answer (rhymes with Wimbo Jhales:)...whom would most certainly be the executive branch here. The analogy being, that although the US President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints judges to the Supreme Court, once appointed justices are expected to think and act independently, without having to fear emergency rule being declared should they do, as happened recently in Pakistan--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are attempting to say independent is the same as impartial, which is NOT true. The definition of independent you give is not the same as defined in the article you link to: Judicial independence is the doctrine that decisions of the judiciary should be impartial and not subject to influence from the other branches of government or from private or political interests.
The arbcom should be impartial - everyone should come before the arbcom with a clean slate and be judged on the merits of the case.
Independent means that the arbcom doesn't take into account community sentiment (or Jimbo's). If the arbcom ignored the community's feelings, people would be MUCH unhappier with it. So therefore, the arbcom should not be independent. (And for those of you who want the arbcom to be independent, the first thing to do is eliminate these yearly elections - an elected arbitration committee is inherently dependent on the community, and therefore not independent.)
A good distinction and point! But independence is an important precondition for impartiality, yes? For without the former, the latter becomes difficult if neigh impossible to obtain. I think we can agree, however, that though Arbs are elected by the community (and selected by Jimbo) once in place they are expected to act independently and impartially.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Jimbo, he's most certainly not an executive. He doesn't do much of anything here on a day-to-day basis. He's more of a figure-head. And the fact of the matter is, he doesn't really intervene in arbitration committee decisions all that often. He occasionally emails the mailing list, but he doesn't give us orders. Raul654 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take me for a naive newbie, Raul:) We both know how his Jimness operates; he doesn't give orders per-se (that would violate the whole objectivist/free will/Randroid bit) but he makes suggestions which have the force of orders. To even the casual observer (including the notoriously clueless mainstream media) he is more than a figurehead. Try treating him as one and you will quickly find this out, as some of our colleagues have, the hard way (seriously, kids, don't try this at home!). But Haukur asks basically the same question only much more to the point below, I refer you to him. Besides, you know you have my support, don't you?:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. In addition to Arbitrator, you play a very important and demanding role overseeing FAC (and quite well I might add:). With both the number of FACs and the ArbCom's caseload increasing, how will you be able to reconcile the demands of both jobs and remain an effective Arb?
People have been saying I need a FAC deputy for quite a while, but I didn't think it was necessary. However, starting several weeks back, I began to re-evaluate my position on the matter. I realized that the work was too much for me alone. Specifically, that the FAC itself had increased in size and time required by more than an order of magnitude since I became FAC director. Earlier in the week, I decided to act on it, and named SandyGeorgia as my deputy there. Much discussion ensued, and the choice was almost-unanimously well recieved. Raul654 04:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see it...good delegation is one of the keys to successful leadership (and time management:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having difficulty understanding that principle - specifically "are best protected by registering than by sleuthing". (If it came up in an arbitration decision, I'd abstain until clarification was given, as I did here.) People can and do register multiple account, so requiring registration to vote does not protect us from someone voting multiple times. Raul654 16:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question has been poorly worded and has given several other candidates problems. My apologies. I was interested in the views of candidates in the principle that, given that Wiki needs protection from certain kinds of abuse, which method of protection is better: an honest, upfront restriction, or an open door policy that requires secret surveillance. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private.
Mailing list
Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?
The arbcom-l access policy should remain exactly as it is now - arbitrators are automatically allowed to subscribe, and ex-arbitrators in good standing may remain on the list. Jimbo is allowed on there as well, but nobody else is. Raul654 23:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators
What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?
(a) About secret evidence - see my reply to Veesicle above. (b) About arbitrators having private communication - it happens quite a bit, but usually all of the pertinent stuff (including the "charges") is put on-wiki. Raul654 23:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recusals
Arbitrators who are parties of the case or have an involvement with the case parties that can reasonably be considered to affect their impartiality are expected to recuse. What involvement constitutes the ground for a recusal has traditionally been left to the arbitrators' own discretion, except for obvious cases when arbitrators themselves are case parties. While recused arbitrators, especially the case parties, are allowed to take an active part in cases, collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages, the same way as ordinary parties, they retain the opportunity to read the thoughts of other arbitrators at Arbcom-L and respond to those privately. It is technically difficult to exclude arbitrators from communication on a case they are involved. But would you support a prohibition for such arbitrators to discuss the case with other arbitrators through the private communication channels, except when submitting evidence whose nature warrants non-publicity?
It has been my experience that when such matters come up (that is, that arbitrators are involved in a case being discussed on arbcom-l), the involved arbitratrators refrain from commenting. But yes, I would support codifying such a rule. Raul654 23:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Community oversight over the arbitration policy
Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?
I'm not sure of all the implications of one way versus the other. Obviously the community should have say in how the arbitration process works. Raul654 (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Above were the questions are asked every candidate. I have one more question I would like to ask you. I have a great respect to you but I have a problem with inactivity of several arbitrators. You are the only of not very active arbs that are facing reelection this season, so you are the only person from the current candidates who I can ask this. People a busy. It is understandable. But how do we fix this? Would you agree with the proposal expressed here on mandatory resignation of arbitrators who are too inactive? If yes, what threshold would you set?
Kirill has been at the forefront of this issue (getting more activity from inactive arbitrators.) No, I do not agree with mandatory resignation. Raul654 (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Haukur
I'm asking the following of the current top 10 frontrunners in the race.
ArbCom has the power to overrule any decision made by Jimbo in what he refers to as his "traditional capacity within Wikipedia".[9] Under what circumstances would you overturn a decision made by Jimbo? This isn't meant as a trick question - I would be perfectly happy with a simple answer like "I'd consider overruling a decision he made if I thought it was a bad one". But if you'd like to go into more depth or consider some past Jimbo decisions as examples then I'm fine with that too. Haukur 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo makes mistakes just like anyone else, and when he does, I call him on it. Jimbo's not omniscient, but he very often gets advice from more knowledgeable users for advice before taking action. Raul654 (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking this question to top ten candidates as of 02:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
Jimbo's decisions vs the community support
The final results of elections may or may not fully reflect the community support expressed by the vote tally but are subjected to Jimbo's approval, that is he makes the decision taking the community's opinion expressed during the election only "under advisement". Although it may seem a surprise to many, Jimbo is free to not follow the tallies and he may not necessarily appoint the top slice of the candidates according to their approval percentage. The historical precedents suggest that he may again appoint not strictly according to votes, that is skip the candidate with higher percentage of support in favor of the candidates with less approval rating but more to his liking (or if you want to be less cynical, the candidate on who community is making a "mistake that Jimbo would correct.")
If this happens again in this election and, hypothetically, you would be the candidate promoted over the head of another candidate who got the higher support, would you accept such promotion? Also, would you accept the election result in general if the candidates that are switched are both below your level of support that is such switch would not affect your own promotion? --Irpen 02:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really speculate on a hypothetical like that. It would depend on the specifics of the case. But given how the election is shaping up, I think it's all academic - I'm fairly sure he's going to appoint them in order of proportional support. Raul654 (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of ArbCom, would you place more emphasis on content or behavior? For example, in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds case, there is voluminous discussion on whether SevenofDiamonds is really NuclearUmpf, but no discussion on what got NuclearUmpf banned in the first place. If SevenofDiamonds=NuclearUmpf, then this is a behavioral problem but doesn't have to be a content problem. If SevenofDiamonds edit was reasonable (I have not researched it) would it make a difference?
The above may not be the best example but I can't remember the parties involved in similar cases that illustrate the point better. On occasion, I have seen what looks like an editing admin block someone unjustly, perhaps because of a dispute in editing an article that both of them are editing but that the blocked editor was not editing an extreme POV. The blocked editor then probably feels the block is unjustified and creates a sock. Many times, people running for WP office will cite a clear cut case of someone with bad editing and bad behavior. However, what if there is good editing and improper block (which would point to admin misconduct about content), followed by sock creation justified because the block was improper (which would point to editor misconduct about behavior)? Does the first misconduct excuse the second? Or is the second one misconduct (socks) much more serious and punishable? (This is not an easy answer because excusing admin actions would tend to increase the workload of ArbCom because it allows admin to act on whim. However, excusing the second misconduct might seem to encourage socks). In the SevenofDiamonds case, there doesn't seem to be any ArbCom determination of the merits of his/her edits. If they were entirely reasonable, would you have advocated a lesser punishment or no punishment?
The above issue has some similarities with the Durova / !! case where some say that !! was doing no disruption. This may be another "content vs. behavior - what should be ArbCom's priority" Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you are wrong about NuclearUmpf. The arbcom decision you cite explicitely finds that he's a sockpuppet of Zer0faults, and the reasons for parole (ultimately leading to the ban) are laid out in great detail at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults#Findings_of_fact.
As to the larger question, the arbitration committee's highest priority is to do what is best to improve the encyclopedia. To this end, decisions are crafted that maximize the value of the encyclopedia. Raul654 (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A policy page has had a very active discussion for many months. All sides (loosely termed 'pro-change', 'anti-change' and 'issue-specific') of proposed changes have made their cases back and forth numerous times. The 'pro-change' group is mainly users, with a few Admins. The 'anti-change' group is mainly Admins (including those who helped write the policy over the years) and a few users. The 'issue-specific' group is a mixed collection of users and Admins, but mainly users. All three groups constitute around 40-50 people total, per announcements on the Village Pump and related policies, to garner more widespread community involvement either way.
After numerous discussions, and comments over a span of several days to several weeks on specific issues, what should constitute a consensus? 60%, 75%, 90%, or unanimous approval?
If around 75% agree to a change, is it appropriate for Admins (especially those who helped write the policy) to revert changes and protect the page from further edits against their approval?
Is it appropriate for 6 or 7 Admins to more or less block changes to a policy through protection and reverts, when very active discussions have been ongoing and the majority of those participating constructively (not just saying "No" or "Oppose" without constructive comments) agree to changes?
Would it be appropriate for such a policy page which does clearly have a disputed section to have a tag in that section stating that section is under dispute and to participate on the talk page?
Should policies solely dictate acceptable and unacceptable content, behaviour, etc., or should they also define Wikipedia-specific terms and definitions (without stating so) that conflict with usage in different disciplines, or should such terms and definitions be more appropriately suited in a guideline linked to and from the policy?
Do you agree that policies are meant for enforcement or 'enforceable actions', while guidelines are meant to give guidance?
For the record, I feel that I need to close my questions to all candidates, as one of the editors in the above 'subject' has filed an ArbCom request. As such, it could be interpreted as unseemly or whatever for these issues to be addressed in this forum. I was in the process of cancelling my questions and replying in an RfC and the related ArbCom request when I had to leave to take my wife to a Dr. appointment, so pardon the delay in cancelling this. wbfergusTalk 21:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Pinkville
Wikipedia is a community that produces and maintains a (still-nascent) encyclopaedia. This community has particular social and political structures that define it and that, presumably, affect the character, quality, and depth of its encyclopaedic output. Can you briefly summarise some political and social aspects of the Wikipedia community that you consider important or noteworthy, that perhaps need to be challenged or developed? How does the structure of Wikipedia encourage or inhibit access to decision-making and issues of power/control? Or does any of that matter? And what are the implications for the Arbitration Committee and its members? Pinkville (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
