Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006 | Candidate statements
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peter M Dodge (talk | contribs) at 18:56, 2 November 2006 (Questions →Questions from [[User:Wizardry_Dragon|Wizardry Dragon]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A note on questions being posed to all candidates

Please be aware that if you cut-and-paste one or more questions that you are asking of all candidates, I'll answer those portions that I believe are relevant to my candidacy and which are not already addressed either in my statement or in answers to prior questions. If you believe I've omitted something relevant, I'll be happy to address a more individualized query either here or on my talk page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from UninvitedCompany

I'll start out by answering the obvious question about why I resigned and what's changed.

In 2003, when Jdforrester and I first suggested the idea of having an Arbitration Committee, my interest was mainly in setting up the process and getting it to work. After the first few cases were underway, I resigned. My comments at the time of my departure were chosen in light of the fact that I did not want to undermine what was then a fragile, fledgling institution.

With a series of personnel and process changes, the arbcom has become a more effective institution that is able to work through a case far more quickly than was once the case. With the advent of the arbcom clerks, the arbs no longer have as tiresome a chore in front of them in maintaining the case pages. And I have seen firsthand how important an effective arbcom is to Wikipedia. Delayed cases and poorly chosen decisions have a divisive effect on the community. I think that arbcom work is valuable and am willing to invest the time.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Brian New Zealand

I will be asking the same questions to every candidate thus they do not specifically target you
  • Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam etc) If so, would you recluse yourself from cases centred on these?
  • How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
  • How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
  • How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?
  • Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
  • If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator?
  • What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?

Regarding recusal, I would recuse myself from any case where I did not think I would be able to be impartial. If I recuse, I'm not going to participate at all in a case. No comments, no advocacy, no lobbying. I would always be open to the advice of other arbs and former arbs regarding recusal and would actively seek it out if in doubt.

In general I have been very willing to disagree privately with individual arbs and the arbcom as a whole and doubt that will change regardless of whether or not I rejoin the committee. While I'm not interested in making protest votes, I'm willing to stand my ground and share my reasoning publicly for those issues where I feel strongly.

The arb workload does vary. How many hours? I don't know. I spend a few hours' time a month just following what's being done. Serious participation would involve more than that. And yes, I have the time.

Transparency for arbcom decisionmaking is a tough call. There have been calls for greater transparency since the arbcom's establishment. I believe that the magnitude and importance of internal and side conversations (e.g. among just two or three arbs) are less than is generally believed. Most of the salient turning points in the decisionmaking are incorporated into the decision pages on the wiki. Perhaps a different organization or writing style on the decisions would help.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Newyorkbrad

  1. This is a question I'm posing to all candidates (you've referred to the issue somewhat in your comments above). What can be done to reduce the delays in the arbitration process? Newyorkbrad 19:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough area because there has to be consensus for the process changes. To some extent the need for transparency and public input is at odds with a fast process, and any process that's put in place has to work for a wide variety of cases. There have been proposals in the past for assigning smaller numbers of arbs to particular cases, proposals for greater use of summary judgements, and proposals for reducing the workload by empowering regular users to a greater degree to deal with clear cases on their own. Broadly speaking, I would support any of these (though probably not all of them at once), though the details matter a great deal and have to be worked out. There are tough cases involving serious allegations against long-standing contributors where no shortcuts should be taken. I don't think that we would have wanted the arbcom to rush the NSLE or Pedophilia user box cases. In cases like that, every arb should see the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Most cases are less far-reaching and may not have to be handled the same way.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Fys

I will be asking the same three questions to every candidate.

  1. 'Arbitration' is a process of dispute resolution. If the parties to an arbitration, after it has gone to the committee, manage to resolve the dispute or any part of it themselves, would you continue the case or that part of it? If so, why, and if not, why not?
  2. What role do you believe private discussions between the parties and members of the committee should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases?
  3. Take a look at Wikipedia:Probation. Under what circumstances should users who have not had any restrictions on their editing imposed, be removed from probation? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you are presently under probation due to an arbcom remedy.

The answer to your first question would depend on the specifics of the case, such as whether there are other users affected, whether the behavior at issue affects the wider community, and so on. These are judgment calls. I have no comment on your particular situation.

Not sure what you're getting at about private discussions between the parties and members of the committee. Do you mean taking evidence in private? The arbcom trying to mediate disputes in private? Parties trying to lobby individual arbcom members? Parties trying to lobby the arbcom as a whole? Overall, there is a balance to maintain between transparency of process and maintaining an environment where people are willing to come forward and share their concerns freely without everything becoming a permanent part of the public record.

I generally dislike probation because I find that it rarely works. I have done some analysis of arbcom remedies, and in nearly all cases where probation is used, the party either quits editing, is banned, or ends up in front of the arbcom again. The table you yourself are maintaining at Wikipedia:Probation bears this out. The exceptions are mild cases where there is a good editor who has lost their cool. I have been struck for some time with how the arbcom carefully metes out equitable remedies - 5 months probation for this user, 3 months for that user - when the usual outcome is that they all just quit the project. To the extent that probation helps at all, it does so because it is perhaps more palatable to those users who are concerned about the overuse of bans. As such, the mechanics of probation don't matter much. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Questions

  1. As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. (Question from — xaosflux Talk 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Questions from Wizardry Dragon

I have a few questions I wish to ask:

  1. How so?
  2. Take a case you feel is a case in point. How would you have done things differently?
  3. How would you deal with problem users in general, remembering to assume good faith?
  1. How did you find your experience as an Arbitrator?
  2. What would you consider the defining, or most positive moment, as an Arbitrator?
  3. What would you consider the low point, or least positive moment, as an Arbitrator?
  4. What would you have done differently?

Thanks for your time, and good luck with the coming elections.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Candidate_statements/Questions_for_UninvitedCompany&oldid=85303361"