Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Roger Davies/Questions for the Candidate

This utility is for asking a question of a candidate. Editors who are eligible to vote may also ask a question, via one of the following methods:

1. Ask a general question: post a question on that link. All candidates will then be able to copy the question over to their Question page and will respond as they see fit.
2. Ask an individual question: pick the statement of the candidate you wish to pose the question to from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements, click the "Questions for the candidate" link, go to #Individual questions, and post the question there. Only this candidate will respond to that question.

Please keep questions succinct and relevant, and do make an effort to ensure you aren't overlapping a general question that has already been asked (even if the candidate hasn't yet copied it over to his or her individual question page), or indeed an individual question that has already been asked of this candidate.

Guidance for candidates: Candidates are requested to answer all questions that are put to them, including all general questions, to ensure the Community is as fully informed as it wishes to be before voting commences. You are, of course, welcome to refuse to answer a question if you feel uncomfortable doing so, but do remember that that may well result in a voter choosing to oppose you. If a question is a near-duplication of another, you are—of course—welcome to as an answer to that question simply refer the editor to your response to the similar question.

General questions - answered

General Questions submitted by the users indicated. For more information, please see the guidelines posted here.

Question from Ultraexactzz

Good luck with your candidacy. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1. If you had to describe the ideal role of an Arbitrator in one word, what would that word be?

   Judicious.

Questions from Giggy

1. a/s/l?

   21+++, male, UK/France

2. What is your opinion on the apparent divide in editors who focus primarily in mainspace, and those who focus primarily in project space? What would you do to help ease conflicts that come as a result of clashes between these editors? This is a deliberately open ended question.

   Unnecessary friction. Editors contribute best where their skills/interests lie. Everyone, in theory, has a contribution to make.

3. What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?

   The principle is that banned users' edits are reverted. This has the great practical advantage of being unambiguous and avoids endless discussions about the merits of each individual edit. Against this, some of the banned user's edits may actually have been useful, reverting vandalism for example. So blindly reverting could lead to the reversion of a reversion of vandalism. Like much here, it's a judgment call, on a case by case basis.

4. Pick one arbitration case opened in the last year that contains a final decision with which you disagree. How do you think the case should have been handled, what different proposals would you have made, etc.? Again, somewhat open ended.

   The OrangeMarlin case left much to be desired: I commented in more detail here. Other than I've been unhappy with refusals to accept some cases on the ground that dispute resolution isn't exhausted. Dispute resolution is, to put it mildly, of very variable effectiveness and often requires great determination. Early focused intervention by ArbCom (for instance, using summary measures or fast-tracking with three or five arbitrators) might nip many problems in the bud.

5. Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.

   In no particular order:

   (i) My work on featured articles – particularly Hamlet – plus copy-editing, copy-tasting, and revising a wide range of articles.

   (ii) Not breaking Milhist during my coordinatorship (coordinatage?) and helping ensure that it remains respected and innovative.

   (iii) "Bringing on" new editors so they can take on quality article creation and assume project responsibilities.

   (iv) Resolving one longstanding large-spread article naming/re-naming dispute, affecting forty or so articles and umpteen editors.

   (v) Not raising to the bait when dealing with trolls, and civil POV-warriors.

6. Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?

   No, I won't be voting in the elections because it can cause bad blood later. Neither will I be singling out individual sitting arbitrators in this questionnaire because my opinions are based on incomplete information and the criticism may prove unjustified. If elected, I will express my opinions on cases I become involved with fully and openly - as indeed I do in all my wiki activities - and am not perturbed about pursuing an unpopular or minority course. What I wish to avoid is prejudgment as that will adversely impact on the atmosphere of mutual respect that is essential to the smooth running of any organisation.

Thank you and good luck. Giggy (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Questions added via the global question list.

Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Sarcasticidealist

I'm repeating a couple of questions I asked on User:MBisanz's excellent voter guides; those of you who answered there can feel free to copy and paste your answers from there.

1. To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?

   Commonly accepted principles enable a large and diverse community to function smoothly and effectively. Policy, which encapsulates those principles, is therefore essential. However, over time, perceptions and priorities change so policy must be capable of evolution. One change I would like to see is WP:RS becoming policy instead of remaining a guideline.

2. What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?

   Undecided, but leaning towards oppose. The only thing that prevents me from opposing outright is that, as I am not on the list, I don't know how it works in practice.

   • The argument in support runs: former arbitrators have great experience and can provide valuable guidance. As I'm not on the list, I have no idea of the extent to which former arbs influence decision-making, though I imagine that will vary greatly depending on the character and personality of each individual former arb.
   • However, whatever the merits, the principle is a poor one. It reinforces the notion of that ArbCom is hostage to cabals and murky influence. Their presence reduces transparency and the community at large is, to put it mildly, uncomfortable about former arbitrators whispering in the ears of current ones. The situation is even more corrosive when former arbitrators fail re-election by a wide margin.
   • The final decision for this rests with Jimmy Wales. If I were he, I'd reform the mailing list and instead encourage former arbitrators to contribute with statements. Whatever the advantages of the status quo, this is more than outweighed by the public relations fall-out.

3. At least one candidate has committed to being "open to recall" in much the same way as administrators in Category:Administrators open to recall. What is your view of the wisdom of this, and do you see yourself making a comparable commitment?

   • Arbitrators need some form of judicial immunity to protect them from aggrieved parties and/or troublemakers. They also shielding from knee jerk reactions by the community to controversial decisions: there's no point in having independent arbitrators if they go in fear of being sacked for making "wrong" decisions..
   • Otherwise, we need to have a system in place for the removal of arbitrators who stop participating or who lose the confidence of their fellow arbitrators. This is much easier to deal with. A simple majority in a vote of no confidence should automatically trigger an arbitrator's resignation/removal.
   • Personal recall. I am already open to recall as an administrator and would resign as an arbitrator if (i) I was recalled as an administrator or (ii) a majority of arbitrators called for my resignation.

I echo both the thanks and the best wishes of the above questioners.

Thanks --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Celarnor

1. What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (.e,g, types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?

   From a practical point of view, applying the remedies in one case to specified range of closely related cases has many advantages. It provides an explicit behavorial guideline (like WP:3RR) for editors and administrators, and has the potential to address widespread problems with broadstroke solutions. I have /DIGWUREN in mind here. Against that, any spin-off remedies need to be carefully logged, monitored and reviewed to guard against over-zealous or inappropriate enforcement.

2. What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?

   Broadly, arbitrators should abide by the standards they expect of others. I would expect an arbitrator who edit-wars or who is grossly uncivil, for example, to resign.

Question from LessHeard vanU

This follows from the various attempts this year at addressing the means by which Administrators can be desysopped, none of which has gained sufficient traction.

1. Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, I would. Someone has to watch the watchmen. Desysopping cases would probably be easiest handled by a small group of arbitrators. They'd initially decide whether the case had any merit and, if not, decline it. If they accepted the case, they'd fasttrack it, making a speedy recommendation to ArbCom for endorsement or otherwise. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the above, and all the best in your endeavour.

Question from Carnildo

1. How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?

   As much as it takes. Probably a minimum of four or five and a maximum of twenty to thirty. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from WilyD

1. During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally). While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:

1. Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over a regular editing issue? Are there any special considerations? If it is not appropriate, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?

   If any editor, admin or not, is editing disruptively then a block is appropriate to protect the encyclopedia. I don't think it's best practice to block established editors in good standing without multiple explicit warnings. The very rare exception would be if the blocking admin reasonably believed – for instance, because the disruptive behaviour was considerably out of character – that the editor's account had been compromised.

2. Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when? If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?

   No, it is not appropriate, unless the blocking admin reasonably believed that (i) the account was currently and actively being used to damage the project and (ii) sought community endorsement of the block, perhaps at AN/I, prior to making it. Failure to follow these steps should lead to a short desysopping.

Questions from PhilKnight

1. In what situations would you recuse yourself? Obviously, I'm not asking for a generic answer, but instead I'm genuinely interested in what subject areas, or conflicts involving which users, you would recuse yourself. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

   I can't think of any subject areas where I might recuse myself. (On reflection, I'd recuse myself from any case involving Milhist project coordination.) I probably would recuse myself from hearing cases affecting a handful of individuals with whom I interacted frequently, though even that would depend what the case was about.

2. Imagine there is a case involving an editor who had been pushing a scientific racist viewpoint, and then another editor describes them as racist. Then an uninvolved admin blocks the second editor for a personal attack. How should this be handled?

   First, the behaviour of the editor pushing the POV needs to be looked at and appropriate warnings made/sanctions applied. Second, irrespective of whether the views are racist, it is never helpful to crank up the drama with name-calling. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Thatcher

1. The Arbitration Committee handles a wide variety of complex situations on the private mailing list, some presenting moral and ethical dilemmas that never come to the full attention of the wider community. How would you handle some of these situations?

A. A checkuser forwards to the Arbcom mailing list evidence that a large number of vandal accounts share a single IP address and a single user agent with an administrator. After internal discussion, the IP address is blocked Anon only, ACB, under the theory that since the IP is a workplace, it might be shared, but that if the admin is the vandal, he will "get the hint." The admin takes a short unannounced hiatus, then returns as if nothing had happened. Right call or wrong call and why? Does the kind of vandalism make a difference?

Yes, it's the right initial call because it's essentially low drama with a good prospect of successful outcome. However, particularly if the vandalism concerns BLP or outing, the situation should be closely monitored, with swift and robust subsequent steps if the vandalism reoccurs.

B. A checkuser who is an active editor of a particular article or topic sees a new user acting suspiciously like a previously banned user. What should the checkuser do?

(a) Run the check himself. After all, he is the most familiar with the banned user's editing patterns, and if the account turns out to be an unrelated editor, there is no privacy violation as long as the checkuser does not discuss the findings with anyone.

(b) Ask an uninvolved checkuser to evaluate the need for a check, and then run the check if needed. Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is worth the delay and inconvenience.

(c) Write your own answer.

(B) Asking an uninvolved checkuser avoids any suggestion of investment and also provides an objective second opinion.

C. User:Smith is banned after a long series of behavioral problems including harassment of User:Jones, which Smith continues on his personal blog. A checkuser presents evidence that Smith has returned as User:Smythe. His editing is without incident and he is avoiding Jones. The Committee decides to ignore the Smythe account. Some time later, Smith emails the Committee, disclosing the Smythe account and pointing out Smythe's good edits, and asking to be unbanned. However, he has continued to post negative comments about Jones on his blog, and Jones objects to allowing Smith to edit under any account name. What should be done?

Outing aside, I'm always uncomfortable about Wikipedian enforcement tentacles extending off-wiki though I suppose it depends on what Smith is actually saying in his blog. Jones, of course, doesn't have to read it.

2. In private discussions about a pending arbitration case, there is a split between a group of Arbitrators who want strong sanctions and a group that want mild or no sanctions. Is it better to propose a middle of the road decision that everyone can sort of support, or to write a proposed decision with both the mild and severe remedies and have an open vote? What should happen if neither the mild nor severe remedy gets a majority? Does public disagreement improve or impair the Committee's credibility?

Based on general wiki experience, the best route is probably to write two or three proposals covering the ground that unites the committee. With a bit of nudging and tweaking, plus give and take, consensus will emerge. The worst is to write two proposals focusing on the two extremes.

3. Just as there are consequences for taking action as an Arbitrator, there are consequences for inaction. The mailing list receives 70-100 messages per week. I do not believe it is humanly possible for an editor to remain fully engaged in whatever aspects of Wikipedia they currently enjoy, and also be fully engaged in the business of the Arbitration Committee. If you do not fully engage in the mailing list, you might miss a legitimate ban appeal, or the chance to comment on an important private matter, or an important policy discussion. If you skip an Arbitration case or two in order to spend time writing articles, you might later discover that the decision had provisions you find incorrect or objectionable. How will you balance your regular wiki-work with participation on Arbcom? If you opt out of some matters to avoid having all your time consumed by Arbcom, what will you do if those matters are resolved in an unsatisfactory matter?

I do what I can, where I can and when I can. Obviously I'd prioritise ArbCom work but I'd hate it to be my only wiki activity. I take holidays too :)

4. Have you disclosed your real name and employer? If not, are you prepared to have that information involuntarily disclosed? Would such involuntary disclosure impact your service on the Arbitration Committee?

This is (part of) my real name. I have no employer in the conventional sense: I'm self-employed. It's not an issue.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Newyorkbrad

1. Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:

(A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;

(B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;

(C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on WP:RfAR) and for clarification or modification of prior decisions;

(D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users on the arbitrators' mailing list;

(E) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;

(F) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;

(G) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain).

I'm not on the committee so initially familiarise myself with the minutiae of how it works. I'd probably start with one case and see it right through, easing myself into other cases as time went on. Reform of the system would be high on my agenda: particularly speed and transparency. I'd like to see small flexible sub-groups (I hesitate to say sub-committees) specifically dealing with desysopping and ban appeals, using summary procedures. (There's more on this here and here.)

2. Please review the current arbitration policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, as well as the proposed updating and revision of the policy that I posted a few weeks ago (based in part on some input from the ArbCom RfC over the summer) at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating and the later draft posted by arbitrator FT2 at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating/FT2. Do you have any comments on the proposed changes? Are there any changes you would support to the policy, or to ArbCom's current procedures, beyond those proposed there?

There's not that much difference between the drafts content-wise (FT's seems largely to be an expanded version of yours). I couldn't see anything that I feel so strongly about that I'd change it immediately. Perhaps, if I'm elected, my take will change radically, but I doubt it.

3. Although the committee was quite busy when I joined it in January, and there have been a few high-profile "mega" cases in the past few months, in general the Arbitration Committee's caseload has been lower during the past three months or so than at any time since the committee was created in 2004. Please share any thoughts you have on this situation, including its causes and whether it is a good or bad thing.

Whether it's a good or bad thing depends on what's behind the downturn. Is this down to a higher rejection rate? Are admins are dealing with stuff earlier and more effectively? Is the community disinterested in pursuing what many perceive as creaking and bureaucratic ArbCom remedies? The reality is that it's probably a mixture of all three. Sorry but in the absence of hard facts, this is just speculation. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo

1. Say you are given the power to implement or abolish one policy on Wikipedia by fiat, with immediate effect, no questions asked. What would that be?

:Make WP:RS policy.

Implement the BLP reform proposals I've outlined here --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Hence or otherwise (of Q1), should ArbCom be in the business of creating new policy, amend an existing policy, or abolish any policy as a result of any outcome of a case? If so, should the community be consulted on such matters beforehand?

ArbCom is very much in the business of interpreting policy and, as a result of interpretation, policy is bound to evolve. I don't think there is a practical way of consulting the community in advance.

The BLP proposals I made below specially require the entire community's involvement. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?^(AC/IRC)

I've never used IRC so my impressions of it may be inaccurate. Perhaps the realtime element introduces a recklessness not found in the more staid world of talk pages? I don't really have a view on whether it ought to be "governed" or how this should operate. I'd need a great deal more information before making my mind up.

4. "Change We Need" and "The same old Washington that's broken" is a favourite mantra for candidates running for office, and that includes this election. Would you, and how would you reform ArbCom? And how can editors be sure that you will stay true to your promise?

I've outlined some ideas for reform in my statement. I believe these are neither too ambitious nor unrealistic and stand a reasonable chance of being carried through. Editors who know me can vouch for my commitment to keeping promises (though not always the time scale). I have carried out pretty much what I promised in the last two Milhist elections and in my RfA. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754

Arbcom questions 2008 - these will be asked at the December 2008 elections and scored on a hidden rubric, which will determine my level of support.

Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2007, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support.

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?

   Given the claimed amount of "baggage" that came with it, not surprising. Cases involving wikiprojects need to be handled swiftly because of the uncertainty/drama generated among the project members. This uncertainty will inevitably interfere with content building, which is our primary purpose.

2. a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?

   Wikiprojects exist to facilitate cooperative editing, by providing shared resources and guidance on article content/presentation etc. I don't think that wikiprojects should police layout or rigidly enforce guidelines. Depending on the extent to which they've been discussed in advance, guidelines may or may not reflect wikiproject consensus but that is not necessarily the consensus of the community at large.

3. 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 don't think wikiprojects have the right to impose anything. Guidelines should be used as a basis for discussion not as a cudgel.

4. Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?

   That depends how the communication is phrased and the intent behind it.

5. 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?

   I give considerably more latitude to "good faith but horrible edits" than to vandalism but a poor but good faith editor can do as much damage to the encyclopedia as a vandal and therefore use of admin tools are appropriate.

6. An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?

   I wouldn't block an editor just for being difficult but I would if their behaviour became disruptive.

7. An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?

   I have come across this a few times. Lacking English language skills doesn't mean lacking in intelligence :) I suppose at first I'd try to find someone who could mentor and/or translate to try to get the essentials across. If, despite numerous warnings, the user's editing resulted in a net loss to the project, I'd block.

8. a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?

   The system is not perfect but community bans are a quick and easy way of dealing with problem editors of all kinds. Yes, incompetent but well meaning editors are potential candidates for community bans.

9. (This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

   Growing pains. A massive rapid growth in editors and content with the systems to handle this evolving slowly behind.

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 06:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pleasure --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Maxim

1. What is your stance on wheel-warring? What do you define as wheel-warring? As an arbitrator, how would you respond to a case surrounding a wheel war?

   I take a very dim view of it. If admins can't use the tools sensibly, they should have them taken away.

2. What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?

   It would depends precisely how the procedure would work but I have no objection to the principle.

3. What is your opinion on adminbots? The bot policy was updated to allow adminbots to bypass RfA, going only through BRfA, and fully-automated unapproved adminbots were required to be approved via BRfA. What is your opinion on handling unapproved adminbots? What is your general opinion on high-speed admin tools, which are not fully automated (like Twinkle)?

   I have very little experience with admin bots but am generally cautious about automating admin functions. I prefer to see a human hand on the tiller. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from rootology

Hello, thank you for running for the AC election! Good luck, or our sympathies are with you, depending on certain points of view! I'll be asking everyone these same questions.

Questions:

1. In regards to the massive "omnibus" case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, do you think bundling it all together was helpful to Wikipedia? Why, or why not?

There can be many advantages in bundling lots of similar or related problems together, principally because you can kill many birds with one stone. A month or two back, I was involved in an article-naming dispute involving around forty articles and it was actually a lot easier to deal with it as one issue. The downside was that more time went into presentation keeping the whole thing neat, tidy and accessible but against this the arguments only took place once.

2. On the same aforementioned Omnibus case, the question came up here of impartiality in voting by the seated Arbiters. It was shown there that a seated, voting arbiter in the case was unwilling to support "subjective" findings that all the users were valuable contributors to Wikipedia, even ones who have created multiple Featured Articles (to the point of being leaders on the all-time list for most Featured Articles, ever). Should someone be seated as an Arbiter, unless they are always capable of being impartial in cases they choose to not recuse from? Why, or why not?

Well, that's the age-old question ... How impartial really is impartial? While we might all aspire to it, we are all human and all sorts of involuntary prejudices creep in, usually without us being aware of them.

3. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia community controlling Arbitration Committee policy, and the AC following the framework of policy that the community sets out for them in how to conduct business?

Obviously resolving the apparent current disjunct between ArbCom and the community must be a priority but I'm not sure that placing one above the other is the way to do it. One possibility is to agree common goals and objectives, and a shared vision, with the community and ArbCom being equal partners in achieving them.

4. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia Arbcom elections being totally owned by and controlled by the community of editors? As in, as how it is on other language Wikipedias--elections are done as straight votes/consensus, with the leaders being seated based on that alone, subject solely to the will of their peers.

The way that the election here works is that editors vote on a shortlist and Jimbo Wales makes the final decision. While Jimbo Wales' has the discretion to act arbitrarily he doesn't do so in practice. Is there consensus to change this? If not, it should stay as it is.

5. Do you think an Arbiter should be placed on the Committee without a clear endorsement/supporting majority vote of the community they will be serving during the election? If yes, why? If no, why?

No. If a someone is not widely trusted/respected, their decisions/opinions are likely to be questioned/disregarded.

6. You get to set a mandate, one sentence in length, for policy on how the Arbitration Committee will work--it could be AC policy, AC elections, AC responsibilities, mandates--anything and everything. No one can overrule this change, not Jimbo, not the other AC members, not the WMF board (so long as it's legal, of course); no IAR exemptions, and it is the Law of the Land forever in AC matters. What is it, in one sentence of 15 words or less?

Pass. Ask me again in six months, if I'm elected and if ArbCom is reformed :)

7. Please rank these in order of whom the Arbcom serves and answers to, in order from first to last (the party who should have the most power over the AC goes first, the one who should have the least power over the AC goes last:

a) The Community

b) Jimbo Wales

c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee

d) The Wikimedia Foundation

Feel free to explain your ordering choices and your rationale behind them, if so inclined.

The problem with straight scoring is that the different parties you list have different objectives. ArbCom serves the community so the community must be able to influence ArbCom. WMF has a longterm legal/logistic agenda so obviously they too must have a say. Jimbo Wales seems to increasingly delegate the nitty-gritty though he has a powerful voice on issues that matter to him. ArbCom should not be answerable to itself as this provides no critical scrutiny and thus no checks and balances. I suppose that leaves us with (a) and (d) on a similar footing; then (b) Jimbo Wales; and lastly (d).

Thank you, and again--good luck. rootology (C)(T) 00:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Davewild

1. Do you support reducing the length of Arbitrators terms to under 3 years, and if you do and are elected, how will you go about trying to get this implemented?

   Yes. It's way too long. The only way to get it shortened is consensus following polite discussion, no? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Davewild (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from roux

Please note: I have discussed civility and editing restrictions in detail at: #Questions from Heimstern. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This question is to gauge your general thoughts on how civility applies as a general principle across WP. Please read the proposals here first.

1) Which conceptual statement(s), if any, in section A would you support or oppose, and why?

• A3 is close to my view. Low level incivility is inevitable as editors become (over) familiar with each other and sometimes fight the same or similar battles time and time again. I don't condone incivility but can sometimes understand how it arises. Here's an example: many coal-face admins end up terse, cynical and world-weary. Inevitably, their bedside manner suffers as they plough through the same old stuff day in, day out. I have seen some being downright rude (though some people would argue that's only to vandals so how cares). I much more inclined to turn a blind eye to this than to two great article builders knocking chunks off each other in WT:MOS or WT:FAC. Being a great article builder never justifies the dramatic baggage that some editors bring with it.

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?

• B3 again. I have seen this kind of restriction effectively modify behaviour: once someone has been editing civilly for a while it becomes habit. Mind you, giving a barnstar to a usually uncivil editor for an isolated civil response could well encourage more of the same though I can't see this becoming an ArbCom remedy :)

2) a) If you oppose all proposed restrictions, but view low-level civility as a concern: what restrictions, if any, would you propose as alternatives to those outlined in section B?

• Not applicable.

Thank you for answering, and best of luck with the election. [roux » x] 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)

This is actually a question suggested originally on Wikipedia Review; however, I think it's an intelligent – and in the current climate, significant – enough question to warrant asking. – iridescent 01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?

No, except in the extremely unlikely event of the candidate becoming suddenly and blatantly unsuitable as a consequence of significant misbehaviour (wheel-warring or socking, for instance) between the close of the election and the appointment. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

Note to respondents: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so. Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.

1. Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:

   a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.

   I'm not sure about the notion of optional notability: while an interesting idea, it's potentially very messy.

   b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.

   Better I think to raise the bar for inclusion for BLP notability and enforce the requirement to cite more strictly.

   UPDATE: I've discussed this in greater detail here, along with specific ideas about raising the bar for notability and verifiability. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:

   a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?

   Both.

   b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?

   ArbCom has a duty to protect the project from harm, which results in a responsibility to minimise the harm done to individuals by it. It can act more swiftly than the community in instances where BLP violations have the potential to shut/bankrupt the project or to blight an individual's life. Broadly, the current BLP stance is about right but is taking time to filter down, especially into articles which aren't primarily biographical but contain significant biographical content.

   c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.

   Well-intentioned editors sometimes include horrifyingly intrusive/inaccurate/misquoted information about living people. POV-warriors often go further. Given Wikipedia's global prominence, information about living people must be accurate, responsible and sensitively written, erring on the side of caution.

3. It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?

   Consensus doesn't always work well on large issues affecting the project as a whole, though it was interesting to see how drama-free the C-Class category discussions were. Changing policy however is a different matter: partly, because those that do participate in policy changes are self-selecting rather than representative, and therefore often have an axe to grind. As a result, it might take several attempts and many months to forge consensus. In the longer term, adjustments to the model are inevitable though these are likely to be imposed solutions (probably from WMF) as the community is unlikely to be able agree on reform.

4. Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?

   I think it's an excellent idea to have landmark versions of key articles, though the discussion seems to have snagged on how to achieve it. I see this primarily as a technical problem that needs solving rather than within ArbCom's ambit.

5. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.

   a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

   It's a fine principle. It encourages editors to start participating, free from concerns that their colleagues will disparage them or their neighbours will make judgments about them based on their editing interests. The focus on Wikipedia is the quality of the source material not the credentials of the contributor. Over time, pseudonymous contributors develop their own on-line credibility, based on the quality of their edits.

   b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?

   It is difficult to see how this could be changed without triggering a mass exodus of people who insist on pseudonymity.

   c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?

   In some cases, yes, particularly with minors, but oversighting should be limited to removing identifying data (street address, school name, date of birth etc) rather than previously self-disclosed real names. Page blanking by contrast is quick and easy. The right to vanish is available too.

   d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?

   Connecting an on-wiki account to an off-wiki source is outing no matter how it is dressed up.

   e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)

   I edit under my real name but this does not mean I want to have large amounts of personal data linked to the account. So I use my real name but am reticent about real life. The alternative would be to edit pseudonymously but be much more candid about my job, location and so forth, but it's a bit late for that now :)

   f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?

   WMF could make the new account sign up page more explicit about the dangers of revealing too much personal information. In particular, they should explain that once the information is out there in the public domain, it's impossible to get all the genie back in the bottle.

   g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)

   Deliberate outing should always attract severe sanction. Apart from anything else, the outing is usually part of a pointy agenda, and involves the theft of their pseudonymity.

6. Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.

   a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?

   Beyond recommending pseudonymity per my 5(f) above, no.

   b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.

   WMF has no special responsibilities over and above the prevailing norms and has severely limited resources. Obviously, it should cooperate fully and swiftly with law enforcement personnel, and impose robust sanctions on proven stalkers. On the other hand, the community probably needs to look out for minors and vulnerable people, and help them to keep out of harm's way.

   c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?

   None. Though I would like to think they have learned from their experience and taken precautions to keep themselves out of harm's way.

   d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.

   These examples can be dealt with under existing policies. I am not aware that of consensus for stalker-specific policy.

   e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?

   There's the rub. I have seen many accusations of stalking bandied about at AN/I and few have turned out to be the real deal so I tend to slightly sceptical. I do think that editors who "monitor" (for want of a better word) the activities of problem editors can easily expose themselves to accusations of stalking (particularly from the problem editor). Should ArbCom clarify this? Probably. A public interest defence of some sort should be available to the "stalker" though this, in turn, could be gaming but a genuine stalker. Needs discussion anyway.

7. A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?

   The edits of blatant vandals or POV-warriors can probably be reverted without too much scrutiny but automatic reversion of all edits in less certain circumstances can cause more harm that good. This needs consideration on a case by case basis. See Giggy Q. 3 above.

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

   a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?

   We have no means of preventing off-wiki discussion and I have no reason to suppose that it's a Bad Thing.

   b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?

   No. I'd don't blog at all.

   c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?

   I must have led a sheltered life but I haven't encountered Wikipedia Review or Wikback and have no opinion of either.

   d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?

   We have no means of preventing off-wiki discussion. I would expect admins and/or arbitrators to be circumspect about discussing individual editors but see no harm at all in discussing reform or improvement.

   e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )

   No, I don't have one nor do I intend opening one. I'm generally uncomfortable about off-wiki sites becoming part of the ArbCom bailiwick. If nothing else, people have a right to self-expression. That said, I would take a very negative view of an arbitrator who followed one line in ArbCom but advocated the opposite elsewhere.

9. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with meatball:VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?

   Yes. I do not believe that a stack of FAs should be a "get out of jail free" card for serial misbehaviour or long-term disruption. The notion of celebrity status is somewhat at odds with my personal belief in community.

10. What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)

    Hmmm. Invasion of privacy alert :))) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern

1. Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?

   National/ethnic POV warring presents a serious threat to the stability and credibility of the encyclopedia. It affects a huge range of topics, from the ethnicity of Alexander the Great, to the Ottoman Empire in the Middle Ages, to the American Civil War, to the Balkans in the 20th and 21st centuries. The problem is the community has not yet developed tests for identifying national/ethnic POV warring and does not have fast track procedures for dealing with problems arising.

   Defining the problem

   The community is not good at dealing with articulate and determined POV-warriors. Because of good faith assumptions, the community often gives POV-warriors far too much rope as they cynically game the system. Getting restrictions placed on them can be a long and complicated business. For example:

   • They will conceal their POV-pushing by claiming they are following sources and seek to characteristic the dispute as a simple content. This is often enough to deter admins for intervening, especially if faced with a mountain of obscure or foreign language sources, vociferously argued for.
   • If they are only slightly (not grossly) incivil, they escape civility sanctions as many admins (wrongly, in my view) regard a low level of incivility as completely normal behaviour during a content dispute.
   • If the POV-warrior is subtle, it can be a long and painful business proving they're following their own agenda. In AN/Is, for example, I have seen genuinely neutral editors accused by POV-warriors of stalking and the AN/I ending in no consensus as the accusations and counter-accusations fly.
   • The heat and pressure frequently causes genuinely neutral editors to burn out or move away: life is simply too short for them to deal with stuff like this. This is a terrible indictment of Wiki systems.
   • Nationalist/ethic conflicts have little appeal to admins. The disputes are messy and long-standing, with invested editors in entrenched positions. From the admin's point of view, it looks like a lot of hard work, in areas they probably unfamiliar with, with endless arguing about relatively trivial content.

   Finding solutions

   I don't think it's rocket science to solve the problems. What it requires is will: a determination to minimise the disruption and unpleasantness caused by nationalist/ethnic POV-warring.

   • I have seen broadstroke measures – like Digwuren – prove their worth. They are effective, particularly their short but escalating blocks and article/topic bans. Identifying articles as problem areas gives admins the confidence to become involved and the tools to intervene effectively. And I see nothing wrong with giving admins the chance of a little job satisfaction :)
   • Developing a standard "Litmus test"/checklist for national/ethnic POV-warring would enable problem articles/topic ranges to be swiftly identified. This could be something along the lines of the tendentious editing essay but formulated as questions. "Yes" answers to a preponderance of them would indicate an underlying problem.
   • Once an article/topic range has been redflagged, a fasttrack procedure could be used to decide whether to put a standard set of restrictions to put in place for, say, six months. To keep this procedure manageable, the fasttracking would not consider findings of fact or sanctions for individual editors. The purpose would simply be to determine whether or not the article/topic range has underlying problems which require special measures. This develops article probation and combines it with summary procedures.

2. Civility restrictions: Civility restrictions imposed by the Arbcom seem to frequently prove divisive among administrators enforcing them. Frequently, one administrator feels the user in question has been uncivil and should be blocked, while another disagrees and unblocks shortly thereafter. Should the committee seek to change this? If so, how? Different restrictions? Different wording? Using them less frequently or not at all? Is there anything you would change about the committee's approach to the civility policy?

   Incivility is an endemic problem. To some extent it's inevitable, as editors become (over) familiar with each other and fight the same or similar battles time and time again. Many admins, especially those working on the frontline against vandalism, become cynical and world-weary. Other dedicated contributors, I thinking of those who do mostly great work at the FAC and WT:MOS talk pages burn out, and the burn-out manifests itself in rudeness and grumpiness. In an ideal world, we'd pack them off for a holiday somewhere but that's not realistically an option.

   However, just because something is inevitable doesn't mean it's acceptable. So, what to do?

   • First, I think we need to come up with a practical definition of incivility. We can't effectively deal with the spin-off problems until we've defined the core issue. Some consensus would give administrators much less scope for unilaterally overturning decisions (of which more later).
   • Then we must publicise the definition, to help make it part of the wiki psyche. To give it a bit of pizzazz, slogan competitions would be a fun way forward: a barnstar for the best definition of incivility in less than fifteen words, for example. This will probably have some traditionalists spluttering over their tea :))
   • Next strong sanctions against overturning admins. I am profoundly negative about admins behaving like anarchists. Traditionally, admins don't overturn the actions of other admins without either discussion or community support: that's a good stance for cooperative project and if it takes a few desysoppings to ram the point home, so be it.

   If you'd like clarification or development of any of this, just ask, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

1. What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?

   Fifty per cent.

2. Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?

   I have mixed feelings on this, already explored elsewhere (Sarcasticidealist #3 and Al tally #4). If anything needs further clarification, just ask :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from UninvitedCompany

Updated: Qs 1, 2, 3, 6

1. Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?

   Four/five featured articles (depending how you split them). Admin. Milhist coordinator. Please see the second paragraph of my statement and my user page for more info.

2. Can you summarize your education and your professional background?

   Law and economics at college. Publishing (in various media.) Otherwise, my wiki contributions in intellectually testing areas (the Hamlet and Emily Dickinson featured articles, for example) should speak for themselves.

3. Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?

   I'm a member of various subscription-only professional/scholarly forums and a general conferencing one.

4. Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?

   I regularly deal with disputes in Milhist, some bigger than others. See my reply to Ryan Postlethwaite below.

5. Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations? If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?

   No. I have no allegiances of any sort in these areas though I have an academic interest in some of them.

6. Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?

   Former publisher of two magazines. Former head of a creative department (14 prima donna staff). Former head of a public relations department (and the complaints department). Magazine bureau chief. Negotiated numerous high value contracts. Liaised with clients/suppliers in the US, Canada, Scandanavia, France, Spain and Germany. Otherwise, my wiki contributions as a coordinator speak for themselves.

7. Have you publicly revealed your actual name and address? Do you plan to do so if elected? If not, how do you plan to respond to any threats you may receive to publicize this information?

   I do not intend to reveal very much personal information at all. I do not quake at the thought of it being revealed though.

8. Do you have any friends, family members, or other people close to you IRL who edit Wikipedia? What are their user names and their relationships to you?

   I have a couple of friends who edit occasionally. On the one occasion when this was a COI I disclosed it.

9. Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?

   I don't really.

10. What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee? Do they all carry equal weight?

    I don't see the role as serving constituencies but of working for the community as a whole.

11. What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept? Refuse?

    The priority has to be disruption, and related activities which hinder article building. ArbCom should refuse cases which could be resolved by a determined admin politely knocking heads together and cases which could lead to micro-management.

12. How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?

    Broadly, by focusing on the on-wiki aspects. Off-wiki stuff is something we all need to learn to live with: it ain't going to go away.

13. What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?

    I don't believe there's a single magic bullet. Horses for courses.

14. Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?

    Yes, they're outlined in my statement.

15. Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most? Why?

    Kirll Lokshin for his clarity of thought and approachability; Newyorkbrad for his unfailing courtesy and patience, and his ability to patiently fine-tune drafts to achieve consensus.

16. To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?

    Depends on the issue but somewhere between balance of probablities and beyond reasonable doubt.

17. What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?

    I think they do a good job under difficult circumstances.

18. To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?

    Kudos to them. Never actively participated myself though.

19. Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?

    None. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I have declined to answer some of the questions because they make me as identifiable as though I had put my home address on my user page. Frankly, I'm surprised some of them were asked. It seems to me the options are: pseudonym and disclosure of personal data or real name and non-disclosure of personal data that if cross-referenced could identify me precisely. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from TomasBat

1. In general, which of these 2 concepts do you regard as higher priority? The concept of "user" as another human being or "what's best for the encyclopedia"? (would you be 200% fair and patient to a relatively new good faith user at the expense of commiting to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)

   I always encourage new users. Great editors don't always get off to good starts and sometimes screw up majestically before finding them feet. It takes quite a lot for me to conclude that someone is of no benefit to the project. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from MBisanz

1. In the past there have been issues with arbitrators who did not reveal their real life identity onwiki, being harassed offwiki with the threat of revealing it. If you have not revealed your identity publicly and were threatened with someone revealing it with the intent to harass you, how would you respond? If your identity is already public, feel free to ignore this question.

   My identity is already reasonably public. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Pixelface

1. Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you were listed as an involved party. (I am speaking of closed cases as well as active cases). Do you think the remedies given in the case(s) were helpful in resolving any disputes?

   None.

2. Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you, acting as a non-member of the committee, have provided a statement, or evidence, or /Workshop material. Do you feel it was worth your time in each case?

   None.

3. Please list all the requests for arbitration you've made. (If you can't remember them all, please describe some of the ones you *do* remember).

   None. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Badger Drink

1. It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?

   Every organisation sometimes makes errors of judgment: the knack is minimising their frequency. Listening to and responding to criticism– especially about slow resolution and unnecessary secrecy – would go a long way to improving things. That said, it seems wrong to revisit old cases with 20/20 hindsight and give my 20/20 take on them.

2. What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?

   As a basic non-negotiable principle, everyone must (i) know precisely what they're accused of and (ii) be able to make an informed response to the accusations. As secret evidence conflicts with this basic principle, because you cannot make an informed response to something you haven't seen, it should be excluded. Processes that dispense with basic principles of fairness will inevitably attract criticism and, rightly so, because a flawed process will usually produce a flawed result. ArbCom must not only be fair but must be seen to be fair.

3. This final question may be frustratingly broad - and might be superceded by smaller, more focused questions on individual aspects of the incident. But let's just get a broad overview for the time being: What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?

   The RfC is symptomatic of the disjunct between ArbCom and the community, and the profound dissatisfaction many editors feel. Hopefully, some of the issues will be resolved by changes to policy, others by changes in the composition of ArbCom; still more by changes in attitudes on both sides. The time is ripe for a period of reform and reconciliation. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from BirgitteSB

Due to concerns over the way a non-public case was handled I once suggested some minimum standards for such cases [1]. Which follow slightly clarified:

• Have at least two arbitrators develop comprehensive presentations of evidence in isolation.
• Allow all parties concerned to review at least the portions of the evidence presentations regarding their owns actions before any decision is reached.

I believe such standards will not only lessen the drama surrounding such cases, but are also necessary to have any confidence in the quality of the decision reached. In public cases the evidence presentations are usually left up the community and seldom is any one presentation comprehensive. However the scrutiny of the larger community is generally sufficient to tease out the weaknesses and strengths of the multiple presentations. Since private cases are necessarily denied this scrutiny it is imperative that evidence presentations are much stronger than in public cases. So I believe it is necessary for an arbitrator to collect the submissions of evidence into a comprehensive presentation even though such a thing is not done with public cases. Having two arbs put together presentations in isolation is an check on the subconscious bias of "finding what one is looking for." Allowing the parties to review the presentations concerning themselves is a final check on any misunderstandings, and a commonsense measure to build confidence in the whole process. How well do you agree with these suggested practices as I have outlined them?--BirgitteSB 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No arguments really with any of that. Sensible ideas. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Kristen Eriksen

1. In the course of ascertaining whether editors have violated our verifiability policy, arbitrators may be called upon to determine questions of source reliability. Should certain peer-reviewed journals be considered reliable sources when they are published by otherwise respectable organizations, but engage in a practice of lending credence to fields of endevour and subject matter widely held in disrepute by the scientific community? As an example, consider the journal "Homeopathy" [2], which is published by Elsevier, but which regularly carries positive experimental results for homeopathic preparations.

To comment on the specific example, my take is that "Homeopathy" is an excellent source for (i) matters concerning homeopathy in general and (ii) homeopathic alternatives to conventional medical treatment, in instances where it is necessary or desirable for balance to report a minority opinion.

2. What is the intent of our policy that WP:NOT#CENSORED? How does the presence or absence of content covered by that policy affect Wikipedia's utility, reputation, and acceptance amongst the academic community and the general public?

I suppose the short answer is that editors have to seek out the uncensored stuff, which is used appropriately. If, for example, someone looks at the penis article, they will find (unsurprisingly) photographs and diagrams of penises but they will not (normally) find them in Reception history of Jane Austen. Some people will be shocked by Wikipedia's approach; others will find it commendable.

3. Consistent with our neutral point of view policy, what relative weight should be given to popular views and scientific findings where the two strongly conflict? For example, consider the finding of this study, and the previous research cited therein, that, in the United States, children seeing their parents naked or having sex did not result in adverse effects on their physical or psychological health. Most residents of the United States would strongly disagree with such a conclusion -- it is quite likely that we could, with sufficient effort, locate appropriate surveys or other reliable sources as to this state of popular opinion.

Public opinion is irrelevant on matters of fact. The route with the "Early Childhood Exposure to Parental Nudity" survey is to mention that other surveys have found differently and report those findings. Public reaction, if properly sourced, could go into a "Public controversy" section or similar. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions From ϢereSpielChequers

For the following questions please don't count any cases that you were involved in, or if you'd been on Arbcom would have recused yourself for reasons such as friendship with a participant.

1. How many arbitration cases have you fully reviewed (or participated in as an Arbcomm member)?

   None.

2. In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?

   Not applicable.

3. In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?

   Not applicable.

4. How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?

   I have no direct experience of this but my view is that if the new evidence had been known at the time and would in all likelihood have significantly affected the outcome, the case should either be vacated or reheard. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Question(s) from LtPowers

• There seems to me to be a significant portion of the community that has lost, or is beginning to lose, trust in the ability of the Arbitration Committee to fairly and effectively adjudicate cases. Do you agree with that basic assessment? If so, what do you think might be the major factor contributing to this attitude, and how might you attempt to modify ArbCom procedures and policies to regain that trust? (Note: I recognize that many of the disaffected are simply apathetic or permanently cynical on the subject, and nothing ArbCom could do would restore a trust that was never there to begin with. My question relates to those members of the community who might be persuadable if their specific objections were addressed.) Powers ^T 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have commented on this in my statement and in several of the questions above. In a nutshell: faster adjudications, less secrecy, greater community involvement, scrupulous fairness. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Individual questions - answered

Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

Questions from Ryan Postlethwaite

Hi there Roger. Could you highlight any previous experience you have with official lines of dispute resolution? You mention it in your candidate statement and it would be good if you could elaborate. Have you made proposals for previous arbcom cases? Have you started any conduct RfC's? Have you mediated any disputes? Many thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

All my involvement so far has been informal. The biggest dispute I've resolved was a Milhist one, concerning an articulate and energetic editor who had very fixed ideas about article naming. The dispute had been rumbling on for about a year, with various RfCs and ANIs, initiated by the warring parties, before I became involved. By this time, it had spilled over into about forty articles. Getting it resolved involved running two or three separate discussions simultaneously, notifying various task forces and editors, building consensus, while keeping the whole thing neat and tidy so that people could follow it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 82#Soviet offensives on the Eastern Front, continued (!), Talk:Baltic Offensive (1944)#Requested move, and here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the answer Roger. I'll be supporting you (I was always going to, my question was more because of personal interest), best of luck with your candidacy. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And many thanks to you for the good wishes :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Al tally

1. Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly, without any issues. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.

   For transparency, CheckUser/Oversight rights go to any arbitrator who requests them. Their election demonstrates that they have the trust/faith of the community.

   That hasn't actually answered the question. Al Tally ^talk 00:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry about that :) Here are some rather more developed thoughts ...

   At the next election, the notice should explicitly state that all arbitrators will be offered CU and OS automatically on appointment. The community are therefore considering suitability for an Arb/CU/OS package. This is transparent.

   Should it prove necessary to give other users CU and OS, a process similar to RfB could be run for them. The focus would thus be on both the need for the appointment and the suitability of the candidate. A reasoned oppose on either ground would be acceptable. Consensus should be very clear indeed (90-95%?). This is also transparent. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

2. See this oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds just like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' [Arbitrators] 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' [Motions, voting to reject, accept etc. Basically, a community version of ArbCom]. Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator. Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone without going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).

   The community can and does ban people amoing other things. By tradition, ArbCom is the ultimate arbitrator and takes appeals from community decisions. That seems fair to me.

3. Former Arbitrators - should they lose CU/OS privs, and access to the Mailing list? After all, they resigned, so aren't interested in doing the work. Therefore, they have no need for such rights. If you resigned, would you surrender such privs?

   Not all former arbitrators resign. Some simply decide not to stand for re-election (and why not, after three years?). I think it helps the community that former arbitrators retain CU/OS rights. My feelings over participation in the mailing list is more ambivalent: I'm not on it so I don't know exactly how it works but I don't have a problem, in principle, with former arbitrators adding their two pence/cents. I agree though that this needs clarifying.

4. Recall - if the community have an issue with your use of CU/OS, or actions as an Arbitrator, what effective way can they address this? (Taking it to ArbCom is the wrong answer, by the way).

   I've talked a bit about this in #Questions from Sarcasticidealist above. The difficulty is balancing (i) the need to adequately protect sitting arbitrators from bogus procedures brought by disgruntled editors with (ii) the need for some sort of recall. So if there is to be such a process, the bar needs to be set very high to filter out, for example, anyone who has had a case heard by the arbitrator. The other important point which often gets lost in all this is that individual arbitrators don't act alone: it's a committee majority decision so the committee shares collective responsibility.

Good luck with the election! Al Tally ^talk 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Will Beback

This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?

Yes, User:Roger Davies II (travelling) and User:Roger Davis (name similarity, not for editing). Transparent: my accounts cross-link to each other.

2. Is it appropriate for editors to create joke accounts, role accounts, "personality" accounts, etc., to have fun or to make a point? Should socks be allowed to edit policies, engage in RfCs and ArbCom cases, or seek positions of trust in the community? Or should undisclosed alternate accounts be used only with care in limited circumstances?

I'm not keen on pointy/joke accounts: Wikipedia is not a social networking site so it's difficult to see the benefit to the encyclopedia. I disagree with "everyone knows the main account"-type justifications largely because I, for one, usually don't know. Against that, I think it's desirable for arbitrators to use a second (but cross-linked) account if they wish to participate in, for instance, AfDs or oppose in RfAs. WP:SOCK#LEGIT seems to have it about right to my mind.

3. Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?

I don't know how to make persistent and ingenious banned users go away and stay away. If I come up with a magic bullet, I'll let you know :))) Otherwise, my impression has been that we already handle socks and blocks pretty effectively, through AN/I and RCU, though no system is perfect.

Thanks for your good wishes, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Rspeer

In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is the scientific consensus (if it exists) a point of view, or is science a way of finding the neutral point of view? Does it differ based on the topic of the article? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There are probably two separate issues here.

The first is whether scientific consensus trumps policy to the extent of excluding significant dissenting scientific opinions. Unless policy specifically changes, the answer to that is "no".

The second concerns the relationship between scientific consensus and verifiability. The point here, I suppose, the strength of verifiable consensus will determine the extent to which statements need to be referenced. Policy is that "statements which might be challenged" need referencing, though I've always felt there is an implicit test of whether the challenge is reasonable: afterall, deranged editors can and sometimes do demand references for all sorts of utterly uncontroversial or unremarkable statements. It follows from this, as you imply, that the requirement for citation is lower on some topics than others.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Ncmvocalist

1. This question pertains to the current request to amend the Matthew Hoffman case decided in 2007. Assume you are part of the Committee, and just returned from a wikibreak. You are presented with that request and other statements/comments/replies that are currently viewable.

(a) Do you consider this case to be distinct from other cases - if so, how?

It seems that several things went wrong: an apparently hostile arbitrator; undue haste; insufficient opportunity to present a defence. The combination of these factors probably prevented a fair hearing. I don't buy the general argument that a conclusion can be right though the process flawed: this suggests coincidence, which doesn't inspire confidence.

The community's confidence in ArbCom is undermined when it fails to acknowledge mistakes. Mistakes are bound to happen from time to time and best is to learn from them and try to avoid recurrences.

It also appears that the case had real life consequences on one of the parties and we should strive to avoid that, at all costs, in future.

(b) Would you support a motion to vacate the case?

Yes, I would, though explicitly introducing the word "vacate" here seems to be opening a whole new big can of worms. While ArbCom must act decisively and promptly to correct its mistakes, it cannot open the door to an infinite number of requests to re-visit perhaps based on trivial technicalities. My draft motion refers to the exceptional nature of this case and does not refer to vacating.

(c) How would you have voted on each of the current motions and why?

I'd abstain on each of them, while proposing an alternative motion.

(d) Would you have made an alternate motion proposal - if so, what would it be? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

My draft:

As best practice was not followed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, the findings and remedies are withdrawn insofar as they reflect adversely on the editor identified as "Vanished User". A notation to this effect will be made on the case pages, which have already been courtesy blanked.

The committee's action is exceptional and expressly does not create a precedent for the routine retrospective amendment of arbitration decisions.

The committee notes that after receiving feedback about the use of his administrator tools, Shoemaker's Holiday voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he wish to become an administrator in the future.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

2. The community have, on occasions, found it difficult to have poorly written or handled ArbCom decisions reversed, even today. What mechanisms (if any) would you propose to remedy this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

First, ArbCom should acknowledge that it sometimes makes mistakes and demonstrate a willingness to put things right. Second, new procedures. The easiest way is probably via a small (five?) appeal sub-committee, who are charged with deciding whether to accept or reject a case for review. If they accept, they define the scope of the appeal: which would go a long way to keep it on track. Too often, appeals turn into wholescale revisitings of aspects of the original evidence:

often this simply muddies the water and (to mix a metaphor) makes it difficult to see the wood for the trees.

3.One of the major concerns with certain past and current arbitrators is their failure to handle ArbCom tasks in a prompt or timely manner. What steps will you take to help move things along? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably the most effective route is to ask the actual arbitrators (via a questionnaire or a workshop perhaps) what factors are preventing them from acting promptly. Armed with the responses, all sorts of solutions can be put in place. For example:

• Not enough real life time available – consider appointing extra arbitrators or finding ways of handling the simpler cases more time-effectively.
• Off-putting complexity (takes too long to read the case) – consider ways of simplifying them (like a scope requirement).
• Burn out - consider reduced case load (part-time arbitrator specifically opting-in to various cases?) or formalised wikibreaks with relief arbitrators standing in.

4. (A) What is your stance on tendentious problem editing? (B) Why do you believe the community is, at times, passive in dealing with this issue? (C) If you are appointed as an ArbCom member, what steps (if any) will you take to help ensure this issue is actively dealt with by ArbCom? (D) What proposals would you make to deal with (or remedy) this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A. It's corrosive and demotivates other editors working on the same topic/article. I've seen a great deal of this in Milhist, where bitter disputes frequently flare up over comparatively trivial things like summaries of casualty figures in info boxes. An unpleasant side effect is that previously neutral editors gradually become politicised/invested as they try to counter tendentious edits and get sucked in. It's often the classic situation of one bad apple making the whole barrel go bad.

B. It's difficult to prove, especially with "civil" POV pushers and with editors who are reasonable and cooperative in some areas but unreasonable and borderline disruptive in others. The evidence is a pattern of editing built up over several disputes, usually over many months. Preparing the necessary evidence is time-consuming and requires a high level of determination (which itself is sometimes seen as evidence of an equally-strongly-held opposing POV).

C & D. The great difficulty is that individual edits are rarely enough to justify sanctions by themselves, especially if the editor is polite or has the nous to game the system. Other than being ready to accept the cases in the first place and being willing to deal with them swiftly, I'm not sure there's much ArbCom alone can appropriately do. On the other hand, the community could develop a strategy, perhaps based on tendentious editing warnings, issued by admins, with say three warnings in three months leading to a block.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless to clarify anything above, I have no further questions for the candidate. Thank you for your time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions by Pohta ce-am pohtit

Two questions related to the balance of power between ArbCom and admins. Pcap ping 16:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Do you think that the special civility restrictions enacted by ArbCom in several cases have been successful? If not, what would you do propose instead?

   I like the idea very much – because it directly addresses behaviour modification – and would happily support many more of the same. It identifies problem areas and enables admins to deal swiftly and effectively with them.

2. Should a single admin A be allowed to undo an action of another admin B when the latter is claiming to act under the provisions of an ArbCom case (WP:AE)? If the answer is no, what should be done about admin A?

   First, the principle: no admin should undo the action of another admin without prior discussion.

   Admin B performs action. Common sense suggests that they should mention that this is arbitration enforcement action in the edit summary. I have assumed this is the case.

   Admin A should not do anything until they have the agreement of Admin B or obtained consensus at AE. In the absense of these steps, Admin A should be given (i) an only warning before desysop or (ii) a short desyop (one month say), or (iii) permanent desysop (if there are aggravating factors). An extentuating factor would be if Admin B applied the action to the wrong user or the wrong article (though even here it ought to be mentioned at AE by Admin A first.)

   Generally, the whole issue of admins unilaterally undoing admin actions is ripe for clarification. Some actions clearly are seen as acceptable: unprotecting a protected page when a crisis is past, for example. Some clarification of roles is important too: for example, when an admin carries out enforcement action are they acting as an admin or an representative of ArbCom? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from Ling.Nut

• I'm asking this of everyone; it didn't occur to me to ask 'til after the "general questions" were closed. This also isn't a vanity question intended to pump my essay. I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
• Would you please read the (very, very, very short) essay at User:Ling.Nut/3IAR and indicate how much you agree or disagree with its points? If it helps at all, the essay was originally written as a response to an admin who insisted that I was not permitted to make my talk page a redirect to my user page. He did so even though there is (or was at that time?) no rule or guideline to this effect, and far more importantly, even though my actions were harming neither the encyclopedia nor any of its editors.
• Thank you for your time. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a neat idea. I'd probably modify the First Principle to read:

A Wikipedian may not harm the encyclopedia nor, through inaction, allow another Wikipedian (or other human being) to do so.

I don't think you can prevent harm by an admin. A user can be harmed by a block, even with the block may be just, though the action would just be a thwart rather than a harm.

Otherwise, what a strange viewpoint for the admin to adopt. Sounds a bit like the "Everything that isn't forbidden is compulsory" school of thought? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But i should tell you, the other ArbCom candidates seem to b falling all over themselves to fall in line with the idea that redirecting User Talk pages is Forbidden by Unwritten Rule. If they wanna codify the rule, I'll follow it. In fact, I'll follow it even now, because I don't have time for their bullshit. But... it's just ethically wrong to enforce a rule that doesn't exist. That's all. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from S. Dean Jameson

I'm asking this question of every candidate I'm considering supporting. I'm not sure if I've waited too long to ask it or not. If I have, please feel free to revert me, and I can ask it on your talk page. Here it is: do you feel the administrative actions of an arbitrator (either current or former) should be treated differently than those of a regular administrator? In particular, if an arbitrator blocks a user or protects a page in support of an arbitration enforcement, should a person overturning such an action be treated differently than a person who might overturn a similar action from a regular administrator?

Good luck with your run! ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 22:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My take:

1. Admin actions by an arbitrator carry no more weight than those of a regular admin.
2. Arbitrators should never enforce their own decisions. It looks like judge, jury, and executioner, which rightly plays badly with the community.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Multiple response by Roger Davies on BLP

Biographies of living people: I first encountered Wikipedia's BLP policy in June/July 2007 ([3] [4] [5]) shortly after I started actively editing. My professional background is in the media and I was forcibly struck by the huge difference in approach between real life publishing and Wikipedia.

Wikipedian principles are predominantly inclusionist and eventualist. The net is cast wide in the belief that someone will come along, sooner or later, to check an article for neutrality, verifiability, and to make it look presentable. This works well for articles about insects, MacDonald's menu items, cars and so forth because if we get it wrong, it's difficult to imagine what real harm might be done. The encyclopedia might look silly if the mistake is glaring but that's about it.

However, the same is not true of human beings. The consequences can be catastrophic. Misinformation about a person's honesty or credibility can cost them a job or promotion. Misinformation about sexual preferences can lead to ostracization or persecution. Misinformation about religious or political allegiances can lead to arrest or imprisonment, beatings or death. And, worse still, once the misinformation is out there in cyberspace, it's almost impossible to erase it completely. The damage to the encyclopedia of a well-publicised suicide or murder, arising out of an inaccurate BLP article would be incalculable.

Misinformation comes about in many ways. It can be malicious, or a hoax; or it might be added accidentally, complete with sources, to the wrong biography. It can be unsourced information or a distortion or a misinterpretation of the source material. With 1,141,967 articles in the BLP category, it's a matter of certainty that we are adding misinformation on a grand scale. And we have no reliable system in place to methodically check any BLP articles, let alone 250,000.

The inescapable conclusion is that an "anyone-can-edit" encyclopedia of global reach and great influence is an unsuitable home for hundreds of thousands of unchecked articles containing biographical information about living people. Most of them must therefore be deleted.

Reforming BLP comprehensively is a big job. The key to it is simple enough: raise the bar for verifiability and raise the bar for notability. This will immediately slash the number of articles to something more manageable. Because of the scale of the task, the momentum must come from en:Wiki as a whole: the community, ArbCom, Jimmy Wales and WMF.

1. Initial thoughts about key BLP principles
   • Require all material facts to be verified by inline citation to high quality reliable sources.
   • Establish notability by requiring three separate high quality sources, published over a minimum period of two years.
   • Provide children with extra protection: (i) every fact to be sourced and (ii) every fact to relate directly to the subject's notability.
   • Create a new "public figure" test to remove the two-year span from the standard notability requirement. This could apply to suddenly emerging people of genuine but not yet long-established significant notability. (Rapidly ascendant pop stars, film stars, politicians, writers, as well as recently convicted serial killers, major terrorists etc.)
2. Initial thoughts about implementing a new BLP policy
   • Add a "BLP" tag for new page patrollers, to get new articles into the system at source
   • Add a CSD criterion (G13) for BLP
   • Add a BLP-specific notability criterion for AfD
   • Bring wikiproject notability requirements into line and encourage project drives
   • Arrange a Wiki-wide drive to evaluate ALL current BLP articles to ensure they comply with the new criteria. (This is eminently do-able, despite the numbers.)
   • Create a follow up mechanism so that BLP articles are regularly checked (every six months, say) for compliance.
3. Articles that do not require the new much higher standards would be immediately deleted.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Slrubenstein

1. In a recent ArbCom case, a project page was created with an unprotected talk page. Later in the process, the talk was archived - in effect, the page was blanked - and the page protected, foreclosing any further discussion (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive178#ArbCom talk pages). Looking towards the future, what policy would you propose concerning the purpose of talk pages, the protection of talk pages so as to prevent talk, or the blanking of talk pages by ArbCom?

   The problem with cases seems to be sprawl, with too many words and too many differing arguments and a resultant lack of focus. Whether a talk page would help solve this problem (by enabling people to resolve some differences) or worse (by cranking up the temperature and introducing red herrings) is a matter of conjecture. I doubt that a talk page helps: opinions are already polarised, which is why it has gone to ArbCom, with involved parties at loggerheads. Where dialogue is to take place, it's best for it to happen in the structured environment of a workshop.

2. Do you find the word "troll" useful in describing a certain kind of problem at Wikipedia? Is labeling a user a "troll" always a personal attack? If the term is useful, how, in your experience, does one recognize a troll? What is the appropriate response? Does ArbCom have a role?

   I don't think labelling people serves any purpose at all. I do know several people who argue their position very forcefully and robustly (but civilly) but are otherwise exemplary editors. On the other hand, I have encountered editors whose utter contempt for consensus makes them unfit to edit in a cooperative environment, though the edits they make are often thoughtful. In short, I don't think we can really generalise.

3. Should WP:DE be made a policy? Why/why not?

   The community (rather than ArbCom) needs urgently to address the issue of disruptive/tendentious editing. A major part of the problem is defining disruptive behaviour, particularly when some editors may be extremely civil but disruptive or disruptive only in narrow topic areas. I have discussed this above and suggested some solutions. It seems to me that there's little point in creating a policy unless there are effective methods in place to enforce it.

4. Some people have claimed that a hierarchy, or hierarchies, of authority are developing at Wikipedia. Do you agree? If so, do you consider this a necessary feature of the community, or a problem for the community? More specifically, in what ways do you see members of ArbCom as leaders or as servants of the community?

   I don't think there's any doubt that some editors – by virtue of the area/s they are active in (RfA, MoS, FAC, AN/I 1.0 editorial team etc – have enormous influence. However, in a largely unstructured volunteer environment, were people contribute where they wish, this is inevitable. It is likely, incidentally, that the same editors would occupy important positions in a more structured set up simply because of their energy and commitment.

   The role of ArbCom is to resolve, by various means, major community problems. Clearly, ArbCom has great influence but arbitrators, individually, have no power. I actually think this is about right.

5. ArbCom was originally formed to be the ultimate stage of resolving edit conflicts at articles. Since then, its mission has expanded. Do you believe it has expanded to reach the appropriate limit of its powers? If you believe that its mission has not expanded enough, or has expanded too much, please provide specifics and explain how you would deal with this. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

   I agree that ArbCom's role is evolving though only time will tell where this ends. The evolutionary process is creating new grey areas and this is leading to tussles/turf wars with the community at large. This can only only be resolved by discussion between ArbCom and the community and the extent to which each is prepared to delegate power to the other. Certainly, ArbCom and the community have sometimes appeared to be on a collision course and this is causing more problems that it's solving. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from FT2

For some reason it turns out my first questions weren't actually posted - sorry! Posted now and apologies for the extra work :)

These are some questions about WP:CLUE and insight, focussing on a role as a member of Arbcom. Research is allowed and encouraged.

1. There is clear agreement that all is not well, in all ways, at Arbcom. Many users standing will be hoping to change that, as many did last year. What aspects work well, and what are the core changes you feel would help change the ones that don't?

   I've just been looking at appeals to see whether this provides useful data. The high-profile (and often high-drama) cases seem more or less equally balanced by lower-profile ones that slip through quietly, quickly and efficiently. That said, as in the real world, disputes have a great capacity to polarise. There's not much doubt that ArbCom and the community are out of step on a number of issues though to what extent this reflects systemic failure and how much is down to communication problems is debatable. A change that might be helpful is for ArbCom to produce an executive summary of each case, explaining the rationale behind the decisions. This would provide much needed insight into ArbCom processes and also enable the community to monitor effectively what's going on.

   In short, ArbCom needs to actively embrace transparency. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not mean full disclosure of everything to everyone. What it means is reducing secrecy (or the impression of it) to the barest minimum. ArbCom, for example, must continue to handle data in privacy cases confidentially. As it stands, excessive secrecy is creating the impression of a siege mentality at ArbCom and this is bad for an organisation which purports to represent the community.

2. Ex-arbitrators and Jimbo are privy to various Arbcom dialogs. What impressions do you have regarding the nature and extent of their involvement in the sitting arbitrators' discussions? How do you imagine their activity looks, on the Committee's mailing list/s, and in particular when the topic is a controversial matter, one that ex-arbitrators may have views on, or some other significant matter?

   This plays badly with the community at all as it provokes numerous concerns about cabals and shadowy influence. This is exacerbated when ex-arbitrators are comprehensively rejected for re-election by the community but remain on the mailing list. Despite all that, I remain undecided, largely because I haven't seen how it works in practice. I imagine that individual input will vary greatly depending on the personality (and availability) of each individual ex-arbitrator. I guess the final decision for this rests with Jimmy Wales. If I were he, I'd reform the mailing list and instead encourage former arbitrators to contribute with statements. Whatever the advantages of the status quo, they are probably more than outweighed by the public relations fall-out.

3. Two questions, or two sides of the same question. Your choice.

   a) Arbcom involves matters that Arbitrators may decide need to be kept out of the public domain, for various reasons that vary between privacy breach and avoidance of harm, to reducing disruption. You-personally-may come under suspicion from some users regarding such matters if you do so. It is unlikely that you will be able to do the job properly without offending a range of users, and unlikely you will be able to always explain your actions as an admin might in a range of circumstances. Thoughts?

   b) As the community has become more versatile in handling everyday forms of disruptive conduct, Arbcom cases have tended to cover a higher proportion of cases where privacy is a significant issue, and cases where there are factors involved that some will argue cannot be fully disclosed due to privacy, WP:BEANS or other effects that would be harmful to the project. At the same time the community wishes greater levels of disclosure, and some will demand it, often without regard to harm (which they may not be aware is a possibility if their requests are met). Communal benefit, or user safety, may be at risk in some of these. And yet you are also there to do right by the project and community. You will be a decision-maker in the question of what to make public, and indeed, when to not even explain why something will not be made public (because of concerns over consequences or fairness). Thoughts?

   Some of this has been covered in (1). In a nutshell, ArbCom must always keep confidential material secret in order to protect the privacy of individuals even though this may sometimes raise concerns with the community. One solution is to provide a case summary to keep the community broadly appraised: it could contain information about the policies/principles involved without going into injurious detail. This seems to me to be largely a drafting exercise. I think the community understands the need for secrecy in some cases: the concern seems to be focused on whether it is being used excessively. A calm, informed, dialogue about this is probably the solution (though it won't satisfy everyone).

4. Seasoned and respected users appointed to Arbcom routinely believe they will not burn out. Yet, equally routinely, a proportion do (or become markedly less responsive over time, or less likely to keep pushing to reduce long standing issues). Why should users feel you stand a chance of lasting the course and remaining strongly involved in a year's time?

   Under normal circumstances, I tend not to get emotionally involved in Wiki stuff and where I do feel investment is creeping in I normally back off for a day or two to get things into perspective. I have no intention, if appointed, of focusing exclusively on ArbCom (which seems to be what many arbitrators and editors do). Many of my wiki interests are immensely rewarding and provide the perfect foil for the grief and angst of ArbCom.

5. Many disputes stem from poor following of communal norms (including policies), or norms that are problematic, insufficient, disputed or conflicting in the face of some new kind of issue. When standards lapse, or dispute arises due to such issues, how hard should Arbcom push the community in expressing the pursuit of higher standards or better consensus as a "need" rather than a "request"?

   It's true that there are sometimes massive gaps between the policy and the way it's applied in reality. ArbCom is in a very good position to see the big picture as editors beavoring away may not always see the wood for the trees. Focusing on the policy never does any harm and reminding the community from time to time that a gap exists which needs addressing is sensible and useful. However, ArbCom needs to avoid interpreting policy too widely as this will create "judge-made" law that will not have community consensus.

6. If appointed, what would you consider your personal sense of "your mandate" to be? (This is not asking what Arbitrators should do; rather it is asking what you see as your personal special agenda, or "matters and issues to especially focus on", out of all the areas of Arbitrator work and activities, as a Committee member.)

   First, to hear cases impartially and without bias. Being appointed as an arbitrator means the community place great trust in you and respecting that trust is much more important than personal preferences.

   Second, work needs to done on building bridges between ArbCom and the community and reinstilling a sense of commion purpose. This would be a high priority.

7. How will being on Arbcom affect your actions, or choices about how to act, in other capacities - as an editor, user, admin, or the like?

   It's unlikely to affect my actions as an editor: I tend to do everything pretty much by the book. It would have a greater impact on my admin activities: I would be likely to limit admin activity to utterly uncontroversial activities (housekeeping deletions, blocks for blatant vandalism or really gross incivility). This is because it is not appropriate to become involved in areas which might end up at arbitration.

These are some questions about your skill at Wikipedia dispute resolution:

1. Flexibility:

   a) What experience do you have at a range of Wikipedia dispute resolution "styles", and in estimating how users may react to a given response? (This is a fairly essential skill in deciding whether to play hard or soft, direct or mediated, give another chance, discuss further, draw a line, or "try something new" in a case.)

   I have considerable (twenty-plus years) real life experience in dispute resolution and negotiation. These have involved a wide ranges of styles. These have ranged from "good cop, bad cop" to "carrot and stick", and from empathy with a view to creating as much common ground as possible, to stonewalling bullies. I'm happy to try anything (legal) if it achieves the objective.

   b) Please outline your track record at choosing remedies that are effective, but not overly-excessive, in a sample of difficult cases.
   (Note:- in a lot of cases, a remedy may potentially be "multi stage"; that is, take a step, see what effect it has, return to it if needed. This may include watching or warning first times, taking a tougher line later, or deciding it's an acceptable risk if they act up again, since action could be taken in future if needed. Although mild, it's a valid approach. I'd be fine if you use it, and what you do when it fails.

   I dealt with a persistent POV-warrior by initially rebutting his arguments on policy grounds and then building consensus around him, which isolated him from several of his earlier allies. It took a bit of time but I wanted to try to keep the editor editing (as he had great energy and the potential for great good) while underdoing the negative stuff.

   c) Please show some cases you gave a seemingly difficult user a chance to reform (when others were skeptical), and where you drew a very hard but fair line on a problematic user.

   d) Please highlight a project space matter where there was much divisive opinion but where other administrators (on both "sides") listened to you, and you helped focus or resolve it.

2. Conduct under pressure:

   a) Please point out a case you took a stand that was not universally popular, knowing you could face retaliation or rebuke.

   b) Please point out a matter where you were badly attacked, accused, or heavily provoked, but remained in line with "best practice" conduct, yourself.

   c) Please point out a dispute where you faced people trying to redirect the matter to a side-issue (soapbox, hobby horse, etc) and your response was to avoid the "invitation" of distraction, and to keep the focus on the main target.

   This one dragged and involved various subsidiary disputes on talk pages, like this one. I got the editors to focus on the specifics of the articles, which drew the heat out of it.

   d) Please point out a serious dispute which occupied your attention for between 2 weeks and several months, and which shows your sticking power and handling in the context of protracted disputes.

   This dispute had been rumbling on for about a year, with various RfCs and ANIs, initiated by the warring parties, before I became involved. By this time, it had spilled over into about forty articles. Getting it resolved involved running two or three separate discussions simultaneously, notifying various task forces and editors, building consensus, while keeping the whole thing neat and tidy so that people could follow it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 82#Soviet offensives on the Eastern Front, continued (!), Talk:Baltic Offensive (1944)#Requested move, and here.

   Really long term stuff involves dealing with

These are intended to be searching. Feedback will be provided. Thank you.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from Pixelface

I am asking all candidates the following additional questions:

1. How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?

   As many as it takes. The time is takes to get things turned round suggests that the present number is insufficient so I'd guess at between fifteen and twenty. Having more arbitrators would also spread the load, and reduce burn out.

2. How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?

   Three years is too long. A one-year term would probably mean elections every six months, which would be too much. On grounds of practicality, therefore, I'd go for two years.

3. What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?

   Appalling.

4. Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?

   Any registered user, yes. They are closely monitored and edits without consensus are swiftly reverted. There are a surprising number of typos.

5. Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?

   No, I don't. It makes for a blurring of roles and that just ends up confusing everyone.

6. Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Wikipedia:Arbitration policy?

   No. It should be treated in exactly the same way as any other WP policy page. Apart from anything else, this helps keep ArbCom and the community in harmony with each other.

7. Do you think it is a requirement that subjects must be "notable" in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about them? If so, how does one determine if a subject is "notable"?

   Yes, it is a requirement but notability has been so eroded by instruction creep/changing circumstances that the bar is not set very high. I've discussed how high the notability bar should be for living people here.

8. Do you think the statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (which appears on the WMF's donation page) conflicts with the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Why or why not?

   I take the first statement to be essentially inspirational: it helps raise funds as well as expressing an ideal. The second statements are to do with the practical realities of assembling and collating information about encyclopedic subjects. I don't see them as being in conflict as they are not about exactly the same thing.

9. Imagine a situation where an editor consistently nominates 50 articles from the same category for deletion every day with a nearly identical reason for deletion. Other editors object to this, and several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, but no user RFC is filed. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?

   So much here depends on the reason for nomination and the AfD response. If, for example, a significant proportion were deleted, the editor is probably doing the community a favour. The fact that the discussions at AN/I were inconclusive suggests this is something that needs keeping an eye on but nothing more and it is probably best handled by the community. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

10. Considering the following scenario: An editor nominates all 17,000+ articles in Category:Asteroids for deletion at once and bundles them in a single AFD, with the reason for deletion "Asteroidcruft." The AFD is closed early by an admin, and the admin tells the editor not to bundle so many articles together in a single AFD. The next day, the editor nominates 200 asteroid articles for deletion using an automated tool, with the reason for deletion for each being "Asteroidcruft." A second editor, who is a member of WikiProject Astronomical objects, is checking their watchlist and sees many asteroid articles being nominated for deletion. The WikiProject member asks the first editor on the first editor's talk page to please stop nominating asteroid articles for deletion. The first editor tells the WikiProject member that he will not stop until every asteroid article is deleted from Wikipedia. The WikiProject member starts a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the situation, and later starts a thread at WT:ASTRO about the ANI thread. WikiProject members show up to the AFDs and argue to keep in all of them. At the ANI thread, several WikiProject members and several editors feel that the first editor is being disruptive. A second admin blocks the first editor for disruption, but asks for a review of the block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. At AN, several admins think the first editor is being disruptive, but several admins agree with what the first editor is doing, and several editors express their disdain for the WikiProject in general. A third admin unblocks the first editor, and the first editor continues to nominate 200 asteroid articles for deletion every day. Several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, some initiated by members of WikiProject Astronomical objects, some initiated by editors, but no user RFC is filed on the first editor. The first editor never comments at AN/I, but replies again and again on their user talk page that they feel that Wikipedia should not have any articles on individual asteroids. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?

    I'll generalise this to the principles, if you don't mind, because what makes an asteroid notable etc is potentially a huge red herring. A mass nomination on that scale would make scrutiny of each individual article impossible. The essence here is whether the nominating editor has a better grip on policy than Wikiproject X. It's possible and it's also possible that Wikiproject X members are voting protectively. A better solution than admins/editors battling it out might be to nominate the wikiproject itself for deletion at MfD: that would have the advantage of getting the community to look at the substantial issue rather than the symptoms. If the MfD is thrown out swiftly, and sample articles survive AfD, then it is clear that the original editor's argument is of little or no substance. If, after that, the behaviour persists, ANI should have no trouble dealing with it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

11. Wikipedia is a non-profit wiki and Wikia is a for-profit wiki and both were founded in part by Jimbo Wales. Do you think Wikipedia editors should be required to publicly disclose if they are employees/shareholders/editors of Wikia? Do you think Jimbo Wales has the power to make them do so? Do you think the arbitration committee has the power to make them do so?

    I suppose the underlying point is whether Wikipedia should require Wkia shareholders to declare their COI. The potential COI argument is that improvement to Wikipedia would improve the commercial value of Wikia. To some extent, I think this is finding a solution to a problem that may not need fixing. It would be good, of course, for Wikia shareholders to have a userbox or similar, that would be within the spirit of Wikipedia, but I don't think it's something that needs the attention of ArbCom and certainly doesn't merit compulsory disclosure. I don't know how much information about shareholders the laws of Florida require companies to make public – are they required to maintain a public register of names and addresses for example? – but this could lead to all sorts of privacy concerns. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Tony1

My best wishes for your candidature, Roger. Just a few questions.

1. What is your attitude to the notion of introducing commercial advertising on WP?

   Against it.

2. Many users believe that the current "official" processes for ensuring that administrators adhere to the policy requirements of their behaviour—particularly the use of blocking—are inadequate. What is your attitude towards the reform of those processes so that they avoid the accusation that admins judge the behaviour of admins?

   I'm in broad favour of any community-based process. While I'd hate to see admins on the carpet for the slightest thing, some half-way house between a full desysop hearing at ArbCom and a complaint at AN/I would introduce an element of accountability.

3. Some of the policy tenets embedded in the policy page WP:Administrators are cast in terms that may require ArbCom's interpretion during your term. Can you give us an idea of how you'd approach the interpretation of this potential exception from the critical policy that admins avoid conflict of interest in their role? The text in question is green and includes a commented-out section. The hypothetical case you face as a member of ArbCom would involve a claim that an admin who has not followed the putative "best practice" has breached the WP:UNINVOLVED policy by themselves blocking a user with whom they've had a negative interaction on the talk page of the same article several months before.

However, one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them. That said, an administrator may still wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as "best practice" in some cases (although not required to). Or, they may wish to be absolutely sure that no concerns will "stick", in certain exceptional cases<!--, a decision best left to their own judgement (COMMENTED OUT BUT LEFT IN CASE OTHERS THINK IT'S HELPFUL-->.

1. It's very difficult indeed to separate roles and best practice is to avoid any hint of involvement by inviting another admin to intervene. Sometimes though this may not be practical/possible, during a vandal-fest by an editor one knows for example.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Final question from Majorly

It's been a long month or so, but elections are almost over, and unless things change drastically over the next 36 hours, it looks like you're one of the winners! Have a look at the other top six or seven candidates, and the current arbitrators. Do you still feel you can work with these people, potentially for the next three years? Do you still think you will be able to handle the workload? And most importantly, will you still be able to contribute to the encyclopedia? Thanks, Majorly ^talk 16:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

1. I have no reservations or major concerns about the others at the moment. I don't know what the future will bring but assuming good faith, avoid POV-pushing and remaining civil will probably reduce friction to a minimum. Yes, I should be able to handle the workload and, yes, I hope to continue with content work. (I want to get Janissary to FA, for example.)--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)