Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Nandesuka Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Candidate_statements/Questions_for_Nandesuka

Please ask your questions here. Thanks! Nandesuka 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question I ask of randomly-selected candidates (although it was originally planned for all to answer):

• What is your opinion of ex-admins who have not voluntarily given up their sysophood? Do you think they should be resysopped at AC's will, or do you think that they should go through another RfA? What are your thoughts on the current re-adminship process for involuntarily-desysopped admins? – Chacor 15:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: As the number of admins makes clear, the bar in terms of getting admin privileges in the first place is fairly low. I don't view it as unnecessarily burdensome to ask ex-admins in the situation you describe to go through RfA again. It's clear that AC/the bureaucrats can resysop ex-admins at will, but I think such privilege should be exercised sparingly, along with an explanation to the community as to why the need for such action was compelling.

This is completely separate from the question of whether the RfA process as it exists is working well. Nandesuka 22:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the race. My standard questions. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. What can be done to reduce the delays in the arbitration process?

2. Would you anticipate participating in the actual writing of decisions. If so, do you have writing experience relevant to this task?

Answer to question 1: More arbitrators, and smaller panels of arbitrators per case. Right now the number of arbitrators necessary to hear a case (as opposed to deciding to hear a case) is gated by the number of non-recused arbitrators available, which seems a bit awkward to me. Instead of that, simply say that each case requires (picking a number out of a hat) three arbitrators, and different panels could hear different cases. Along with this you'd certainly need a mechanism to decide that certain cases needed to be heard before the whole committee.

Answer to question 2: Yes, and yes. While the current "workshop" model has some attractions, sometimes I've seen workshop pages play out like a poker game, with opposing parties bidding successively more and more argumentative, punitive, or strident principles, findings of fact, and remedies. The presence of an arbitrator actively writing on these pages usually seems to quench — or at least subdue — such tempers quickly. From that perspective alone, having more actively writing arbitrators should improve the process considerably. I have written a number of pieces professionally, but typically don't refer to them on Wikipedia because I prefer to be judged based on the quality of my contributions on-wiki, rather than by my external works or credentials. I'll look through my contributions to Wikipedia over the past few years and try to find some diffs that give you some idea of my writing talents. Nandesuka 23:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I will be asking the same three questions to every candidate. '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? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. “Ta fys aym”. 17:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to question 1: There's an old saying: "Once you let the worms out of the can, you need a bigger can to get them back in again." Generally speaking, accepting an Arbcom case should indicate an intractable issue that is likely to arise again. If I honestly believed that the parties had worked out a permanent solution, I might consider the issue closed. But if I expected the issue to arise again, I would continue that part of the case.

Answer to question 2: I assume here you are referring to private communications between parties and arbitrators. Generally speaking, such communications are not appropriate to accept as evidence. There are exceptions (intervention from Foundation Counsel, for example, or legal concerns), and when such exceptions occur the Committee has a responsibility to indicate that it is making its decision, in part, based on private evidence, without revealing what that evidence is. Such occurrences should be exceptional: we don't want a Star Chamber. I assume that you weren't asking about private conversations between sitting arbitrators on a case. I believe that those are appropriate.

Answer to question 3: Probation is an unusual remedy. Of the thousands of editors on Wikipedia, only a handful are under probation. Users are only placed on probation when there is a belief on the part of the Committee that their behavior will continue without it. As such, I believe that once probation is established, the burden of proof shifts to the party under probation to provide a compelling explanation for why they no longer need to be under it. Nandesuka 02:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nandesuka, can you point us to a dispute in which you have benefited from mediation? (or which could have used mediation?) Have you been involved in an arbitration? Please comment.

2. Your statement explains why you think you would make a good arbitrator. What would the ArbCom be missing if you were not elected? Jd2718 19:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to question 1: I was involved in Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision, which I believe resulted — at least for a time — in clearing a number of logjam issues on that article. I've been involved in a few arbitation cases as a party, such as Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alienus, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO, although I don't believe I was under risk of censure in either of those cases. I've been an interested bystander and/or participant on the workshop pages in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano.

Answer to question 2: I can't answer that without more knowledge of the other candidates than I actually have. As a pure guess, I suspect I'm more interested in writing decisions, as opposed to voting on them, than most people would be. Nandesuka 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 19:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly conflicted about this, particularly about Checkuser. The status quo is that Checkuser permissions are zealously protected and limited to a very few users. Given the possibility that these tools could be used for stalking, I think that's the right decision, and I'll continue to support it. That said, philosophically I've often wondered if the hiding of IP address information gives editors a false sense of anonymity. Realistically, as the Daniel Brandt debacle shows, it's fairly trivial to figure out who a given contributor actually is, if that contributor provides a large enough data set to work with. In the abstract, I wonder if making IP information generally available might inspire people who have privacy concerns to take more affirmative steps to protect their privacy. From a strictly practical point of view, I realize that would be completely unacceptable. All of which is a long-winded way of saying "I support the status quo."

In terms of thresholds, I think that there's no particular one necessary beyond "trusted by the community." I do think that people with those tools have the responsibility to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Nandesuka 14:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive checkuser and oversight privileges. Have you read and understood foundation policies regulating these privileges, and able to help out fellow Wikipedians on avenues (e.g. WP:RFCU) in a timely manner should you be granted either or both of them?

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

5. Are "honourable" long-standing contributions and having the role of being sysop mitigating factors when dealing with chronic cases of incivility and other forms of policy violations?

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

Answer to question 1: Wikipedia is not a social club. Yet, in order for Wikipedia to function effectively, editors need to have congenial and professional relationships with each other. Editors, admins, and arbitrators use various forms of communication to forge these relationships. It's been my experience that the medium one uses to communicate strongly influences the nature and character of that communication. I've noticed that some editors, including some senior admins, seem to prefer out-of-band communication to on-wiki communication as a matter of course. I think that this is, on the whole, damaging to Wikipedia. I don't think there's anything wrong with the occasional e-mail message or hopping on to chat to find someone, but I do think that when one's first recourse for discussing an issue is (say) talking about it on IRC rather than talking about it on a Wikipedia talk page, it's problematic. Not only because of the nature of the medium that I alluded to above, but because those extra-wiki forms of communication deprive other users of the ability to follow and participate meaningfully in the conversation. Of course there are times when one needs a private word with someone else on a matter that requires discretion, but I think it's important to our users that their arbitrators be people who, on quotidian matters, prefer on-wiki communication to off-wiki communication. I think that that attribute is one that is largely undiscussed by candidates.

Answer to question 2: I'd replace WP:RS with Wikipedia:Attribution, effective immediately.

Answer to question 3: Yes. Yes.

Answer to question 4: Integrity is making decisions based on the evidence presented before you, and not on personal prejudices. Integrity is also recognizing when you can't do this, and recusing as necessary. Accountability is providing the rationale for your decision in public, and being willing to explain it and stand by it. Transparency is making these decisions in the context of public evidence, and noting openly when non-public evidence has been a factor.

Answer to question 5: This goes back to my soliloquy about which hat you wear when you are working on Wikipedia. I don't believe now, and never have believed, that the role of sysop (or bureaucrat, or arbitrator) should require users to give you any special treatment in the normal course of editing. What may warrant special treatment is your history of editing and adminning at Wikipedia (in other words, the distinguishing point is what you have done, not who you are.) An editor's track record of showing great restraint and care in using his admin tools is a mitigating factor if they get in trouble for misusing their admin tools. Likewise, a long and productive editing career can mitigate a single episode of vandalism: anyone can have a bad day. However, your use of the word "chronic" narrows the question a little bit. Mitigation is not the same as indemnification. No one should feel that their editing or admin track record gives them a right to be constantly unpleasant and rude. So yes, it is one factor to consider, but is in no way dispositive. Nandesuka 03:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having ran in last year's ArbCom election, have you learned anything from that election that you'll be applying to this election?

Answer: Not really. I was very comfortable with my statement from last year, and used part of it for my statement this year. The results from last year were about what I expected. What I tried to do last year was to express what I thought was the main problem Wikipedia would be facing this year (particularly with respect to transparency and legitimacy), and suggest that we need to be thinking proactively about it. I believe that events (and subsequent arbitration cases) have supported my position. So this year, I'm hoping that everyone running for office is thinking about transparency and legitimacy. As long as whomever is elected takes those issues seriously, I think they'll do a good job. Nandesuka 02:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB. "last year's ArbCom election" refers to the elections that were organised during December 2005, but which took place in January 2006, and are referred to by some as the January 2006 ArbCom elections. Carcharoth 14:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

A related question: what has changed since last time? How have you improved as a candidate? Carcharoth 14:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned a bit more patience since last time. There's a phenomenon that affects articlespace particularly that I've heard called "Recentism," where events that are currently in the news get more play and attention. The same thing tends to happen with policy debates. Knowing that adds a little perspective to how I view things. I've also probably become less tolerant of vandals, particularly sockpuppeting vandals, over time. Nandesuka 13:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

1. A current Arbcom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?
2. Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?
3. Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?
4. If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.
5. While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)
6. It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?
7. For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom?

AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to question 1: Arbcom does have the power to decide this case. Even if they didn't do so explicitly, they could simply do it more subtly by simply applying the standard in a dispute case. There's something to be said for simply being forthright about it. That being said, I believe that consensus can and almost always should be formed without Arbcom intervention. I probably wouldn't have accepted this case.

Answer to question 2: Arbcom can resolve disputes between users and address user and administrator misconduct. The way this question is phrased is therefore misguided. Arbcom can of course respond to and rule on allegations of misconduct again bureaucrats. No such allegation was made in the Giano case; "I don't like the decision the bureaucrats made, could Arbcom please overrule their decision" is nothing near "I think the bureaucrats abused their discretion." As such, I think they made the right call in not interfering. I don't think they "dodged" the question. I think they answered it pretty directly.

Answer to question 3: Yes. People whose only contributions to the encyclopedia are vandalism get less wiggle room than people with a solid history of contributions. That's right and proper. I'll absolutely uphold that principle as an arbcom member.

Answer to question 4: No, question 4 doesn't follow logically from question 3. I'm an administrator and an editor, and I don't think it makes much sense to ask whether one hat is more important than another. If I was hauled up in front of Arbcom for blocking all new users whose name began with "X", it wouldn't really matter that I'd just written a treatise on textile production under the Jacobins. If I was involved in an Arbcom case because of my insistance that every Monty Python related page have a background image consisting of the words "SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM", the fact that I responsibly closed AfDs would be completely irrelevant. The key here, I think, is that the princinple you suggest in question 3 is not, in fact, something one uses to distinguish between two valuable contributors, but between a valuable contributor — admin or article editor or both — and someone who shows up out of the blue whose first 10 edits are to claim that he invented fire. "Has this person made valuable contributions" is a gate, not a scale. We don't put editors up against each other and say "Well, this fellow has made 5,000 edits, and this one has made 5,500, so I'll rule in favor of Party B," which is the corrollary to your suggestion that we can somehow decide whether admin work or editing work is "more important." When an admin and a longtime serious editor come into conflict, what should determine the outcome is who is right, not who is whom. We are here to write an encyclopedia. Both editors and administrators are necessary to make this project work. Trying to declare that one role trumps the other is a sucker's game. I personally try to keep my admin work and my writing work in balance, because I enjoy both roles, but I don't see any pressing need to tell other users doing valuable work that I am more equal than them.

Answer to question 5: I look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics as a great example of the sort of damage Arbcom can accomplish while not actually doing anything. It was a tendentious and acrimonious debate that dragged on for what seemed like months, and it ended with Arbcom "admonishing" all the parties. Frankly, one doesn't need an arbitration committee to hand out finger-wags. The problems in that case were manyfold, but I'll list some of my main concerns (and I'm speaking here about form, not about the specifics of the case). First, it was never clear what the violations in question were. Second, the workshop page was an utter zoo; while providing space for parties to work things out is all very well and fine, I'd support more aggressive action by arbitrators to direct (and where appropriate, moderate) the debate. Lastly, ArbCom needs to be able to admit when they were wrong in deciding to hear a case. If the only thing ArbCom can find to say is "Now, boys, play nice," I'd rather see them retroactively close the case early and tell the parties to get back to work. The distinction between this and reaching a "decision where nothing really happens" is subtle, but important. Nandesuka 13:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to question 6: I don't think it's right or wrong, but most likely a reflection of who is willing to do the writing. Since the writing in large part frames the debate, I personally would rather see more arbitrators participating in the writing of decisions — and I plan to do so — but I wouldn't characterize Fred's writing as "wrong."

Answer to question 7: From a practical perspective, I believe that any non-admin who is elected to the arbcom should be given admin rights. From a philosophical perspective, I believe that non-administrators are a group that already does have representation on the arbcom. See my discourse about "hats", above. Nandesuka 14:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

During the discussion of the Giano case I tried to be civil and it was not my intent to "troll". However, you and others quickly labelled me a troll and you went so far as to revert my comments off the page. Why did you treat me with such disrespect and will you continue to treat me so in the future? How can someone who does not intend to troll be a troll? --Ideogram 07:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I believe the edit you're referring to is here, and I think it's a good edit, and stand by it. You were engaging in repetitive taunting that was intended primarily to provoke a reaction. That's as good a definition of trolling as any. In addition to my removal of your comments, various comments of yours were reverted by Jonathunder and Irpen. Your edits at this point of the case were described as "universally unproductive" by one individual, and I think this characterization was fair. Your edits at this point can be described as asking a large number of extremely open ended questions with a hectoring or "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" tone (see here, here, here, here for a few choice examples, but the history of the page is full of many, many more.)

You deserve to be treated with respect. Part of treating you with respect is allowing you to accept the consequences of your own decisions. One decides whether someone is a troll based on their actions, not on their intent. We can't know your mind; we can only examine your actions and decide accordingly. Your actions, in this case, speak for themselves, and I invite anyone who is wondering about whether my characterization of your edits as "trolling" is fair to examine the history for themselves. I stand by my characterization of your edits in this particular case. I'm sure you're a great guy, but if you aren't able to withstand this sort of criticism then don't act in a way deserving of it. Kind regards, Nandesuka 13:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are clearly unable to assume good faith about me, I will not continue this unproductive conversation. I will say, however, that you will be forced to deal with many people who are clearly more abusive than I am if you are elected to the ArbCom, and the fact that you cannot have a civil conversation with me reflects badly on your suitability for the ArbCom. --Ideogram 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. I disagree with your characterization of my comments as "uncivil," but in the end it is up to each editor to make up their own mind about that. Regards, Nandesuka 15:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me a "troll" is uncivil. Apparently you think I am lying to you about my intent. --Ideogram 16:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. This is a page for questions and answers, not for threaded discussion. If you want to explain reasons for opposing the candidate, there will be a place for that at voting time. Newyorkbrad 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question. Why should someone with several thousand productive edits be forced to prove to a hostile judge that he is not a troll? What does "assume good faith" mean to you? --Ideogram 16:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your answer to User:Maclean25 below you say "parties hostile to Wikipedia seem to have identified interactions between admins and non-admins as a potential fault line to be exploited to divide the community." Why do you believe this? Can you provide evidence? --Ideogram 01:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates? If not successful in this Arbitration Committee election, will you seek a position on the Mediation Committee? ·maclean 05:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Answer: I've participated in a mediation or two, and I've had some interaction with member advocates before, mostly positive. I'm unlikely to seek a position on the mediation committee. Mediation is excellent for resolving content disputes, but much of my interest in Arbcom lies in the interaction between admins and non-admins, and between admins, and mediation doesn't have as deep of a track record there.

Elaborating on my answer a bit, the specific interest I have in this question is that parties hostile to Wikipedia seem to have identified interactions between admins and non-admins as a potential fault line to be exploited to divide the community. I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia operates best when it operates with formal hierarchy kept as a minimum. Admins are not "better" than editors. Editors are not "better" than admins. Both admin and article editor are primarily roles, and the role is not the man (or, as the case may be, the woman). Right now I think the best place to be to defend against those trying to divide the community is Arbcom. So that's where I want to be. Nandesuka 00:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q: 1. Who are you?

A: Call me Nandesuka. My first edits to Wikipedia were in early 2005. I've been an administrator here since mid to late 2005. My personal interests include music, reading, and writing. I have more than a passing interest in videogames and mid-20th century pop art. I invite users to browse my contributions to get an idea of what topics interest me. I'm particularly proud of some of the rewrites I've done on a number of articles related to human sexuality and reproduction, including Pregnancy, Breastfeeding, and Twin. I'm currently involved in Wikiproject Laundromat, whose purpose in life is to improve articles by reducing the incidence of ugly laundry lists in articles.

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

A: No, I'm quite a bit older than both of those.

Would you mind providing a ballpark figure for the table here? Some candidates chose to provide no details, some their age, and some a ballpark figure. Carcharoth 03:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm over 30. Nandesuka 05:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Yes, when there is community consensus to do so. The ArbCom's brief is to resolve disputes that aren't able to be resolved in other ways. Restricting it to user conduct disputes only will substantially hamper its utility. It turns out that the best way to clarify some policies is through resolving user conduct issues, but it's a false economy to say that the ArbCom should be restricted' to user conduct issues. Nandesuka 04:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Answer: To be flip about it, WP:NPOV is a fundamental Wikipedia principle, and WP:SPOV is an essay. More generally, I think the failing of WP:SPOV is that it anticipates and encourages what, for lack of a better term, I can only describe as "activist editing." While I consider myself a skeptic and might apply SPOV in my personal intellectual life, I'm not convinced that that's an appropriate approach for a general-purpose encyclopedia. I think one of the most important descriptions of Wikipedia is that we are a tertiary source. I think the NPOV policy is superior to SPOV because it makes no a priori assumptions about (and places no constraints on) the nature of the material being edited. The section in the NPOV policy on equal validity I think fairly summarizes why the more specific exhortations of WP:SPOV are unnecessary. Nandesuka 04:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

2. There may well arise cases where a dispute based on the inclusion of information whose accuracy is currently a point of seemingly reasonable controversy, possibly even bitter controversy, in that field of study. Should you encounter a case dealing with such information, and few if any of your colleagues on the committee were knowledgeable enough in the field for them to be people whose judgement in this matter could be completely relied upon, how do you think you would handle it?

If elected to the Arbitration Committee will you continue active editing? Will you not lose interest in contributing to articles. Will you be available to any users who seek your help or advice.

--Dakota 13:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will absolutely continue editing. No, I will not lose interest in contributing to articles. Yes, I will be available to any users not involved in cases I am sitting on who seek my help or advice. Nandesuka 14:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open-mindedness and the ability to revise one's own position in response to new evidence seems to me to be an important factor in considering ArbCom cases. Can you please provide an example of a situation where your initial judgement of a situation turned out to be wrong, and show how you dealt with it? Guy (Help!) 14:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great question. I'm sure I can find a good example of this, but please forgive me if my response is slow: I want to review my contributions carefully to find an illustrative one. I'll replace this placeholder once I've found it. Nandesuka 00:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've found my favorite example. On Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org, I engaged in a long discussion where I supported someone else's idea of avoiding using that site as a reliable source whenever other sources were appropriate. I approached that purely as a thought experiment, and I think many of the points I made were "right" in the abstract. However, looking at the subject from a distance, the proposal was originally made as part of an effort to win a number of content disputes. In retrospect, I think that even if my heart was in the right place, it was wrong to lend support to a proposal such as that in that particular context. Nandesuka 15:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking these questions all applicants:

1) How would you handle a situation where an error of judgment has occured, especially if evidence is provided to confirm that the position is incorrect?

Answer: This is a little vague. Would you like to elaborate on the question a little bit? Do you mean if a situation developed where an arbcom decision was "shown" to be incorrect somehow after the fact? There are two competing interests here. The first, obviously, is fairness, because nobody wants to enforce a decision that is patently incorrect. Opposed to this is finality; Arbcom is intended to be bring disputes to a close, not let them drag on. While I'm open to the idea of reopening a case in the event of stunning new evidence, I think that evidence would have to be fairly cut and dry. Because otherwise, every party that has ever lost an arbcom case will constantly be posting diffs of every edit the other side in they case makes, forever, as "new evidence." Nandesuka 00:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Answer: There's no way to do this other than to be matter of fact.

3) Place each of these policies/guidelines listed in order of precedence (to you) starting with highest priority. There is really no right or wrong answer. I'm interested in seeing what you would normally look at first when assessing an article.

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

Answer: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:C, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:BLP, WP:NOT. If I can hypothetically replace WP:RS with [[WP:ATTR], push that up to the second slot. WP:C and to some extent WP:BLP are sort of the odd men out here, because the legal obligations that motivate them are somewhat orthogonal to the more content-driven thrust of the others. Nandesuka 00:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Which of the follow roles should arbcom members fulfil: judge, jury, executioner, detective, lawyer, psychoanalyst, teacher, leader, parole board, parole officer, weighing machine, opinion poll, weathervane, policeman, keeper of the vision, guardian of peace, visionary, psychic, nurse, other?

2. What would wikipedia lose if you were appointed to the ArbCom?

3. Will we ever find a cure for editcountis?

Regards, Ben Aveling 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer 1: Arbcom has the need of members to play a number of different roles. While Arbcom's role is primarily judicial, I think it is important that we aggressively make sure those other roles are met. It's hard to describe in words, but fortunately I was able to find an image that adequately captures the scope of Arbcom's responsibilities:

Image:VillagePeople.jpg

Answer 2: Presumably I'll never be allowed to make a joke like my answer to your previous question again.

Answer 3: I'm sorry, but we're going to have to amputate. Nandesuka 00:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and I were involved in an Arb Com case pertaining to Depleted uranium in which you became angry when I would not stop editing the very involved argument I was trying to present to the ArbCom while you refactored and moved large parts of it before I had a chance to finish it. Since then, you have accused several people, including Peter Cheung of Plano, Texas, and User:-Alex- of being me, and banned them as sockpuppets because they edited Depleted uranium and you thought they were me. However, there is now a checkuser case showing that -Alex-, who you very recently blocked as an "obvious sockpuppet [of mine]" is not me, and someone who you reverted on Depleted uranium after they posted a huge edit with about fifty references which had been deleted from the article since I was banned from it, is editing as User:71.252.225.61 which is assigned to an IP address in Dallas, Texas, very near Plano.

My questions are:

1. If you were elected to the arbitration committee, would you continue to take administrative actions against those whom you have been personally opposed to in the past, or would you follow the accepted practice of posting to WP:AN/I and having a third-party administrator look at the issue and decide whether to take action?

2. While you have been an administrator, why haven't you been using the accepted practice of posting to WP:AN/I with issues concerning editors against whom you have personally opposed in the past?

3. Do you intend to let the indefinite block of User:-Alex- stand? If so, why?

4. Apparently you and -Alex- both speak intermediate Italian. I speak and read almost no Italian. Might this help you confirm that he is not me?

5. Do you intend to let the recent large edit to Depleted uranium from User:71.252.225.61 stay reverted? If so, why?

6. I believe that at some point Peter Cheung posted his email or phone number, and I recall that User:TDC said that he sent him email. Can you use that to help show that he and I are not the same person?

7. If you are shown to be wrong about these things, do you agree to correct the log of blocks and bans accordingly in the Arb Com archives for the depleted uranium case?

8. WP:IAR is an official policy. Is there any reason that those sanctioned by the Arb Com should not obey it?

9. At this stage, should Depleted uranium remain semi-protected? If so, why? Under what conditions would you remove its semi-protection? LossIsNotMore 23:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. LossIsNotMore 22:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like these are very specific questions about various administrative actions that I have undertaken, pursuant to the ban Arbcom placed on you, which upset you. As such, this isn't the right place to resolve them, so I'll be ignoring most of them: you won't like my answers, and I won't be able to convince you to stop engaging in the behavior which brought you to this point. I will, however, use your questions as a springboard to discuss an issue that is near and dear to my heart, which is the notion that a user taking an administrative action automatically makes them "opposed" to a given user. This is false. Content disputes are quite different creatures from administrative actions. Yet the argument is constantly made by those who engage in vandalism that admins who block them have somehow become "involved in a dispute," and thus should be disqualified from (for example) issuing further blocks. This sort of expectation is ridiculous on its face, because it envisions a system whereby a user can get away with murder by simply provoking enough active admins that they are all "involved." Yes, users with admin privileges can use them in such a way that they call into question their objectivity, but it isn't a foregone conclusion that any use does so. In fact, Wikipedia history shows us that such cases are very much in the minority.

I will absolutely recuse from hearing cases involving users with whom I have been involved in content disputes, or with whom my administrative involvement with has been so deep or corrosive as to make objectivity impossible. But I don't accept your underlying premise that engaging in proper administrative action is the same as being in a content dispute. It isn't. Regards, Nandesuka 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Content dispute on Article X. Editor A ignites war with rude comment on User talk:B. New editor B sees this and reacts but A sneaky reverts himself before anybody else notices the instigation. Rude comments on Talk:X. Rude comments between Editors A and B on each other's talk. Admin C blocks A and B for a day. 12 hours later, Admin D sees the sneaky revert and unblocks B and, for good measure, extends A's block to 2 days. Admin C sees the unblock, doesn't understand/agree with the block sum, reblocks B and extends his block to match A's. He comments in good faith on User talk:D.

Admin D sees the reblock and reads the comment that reveals C's ignorance, reunblocks B, and leaves message on AN, explaining the sneaky revert. C reblocks again, leaves message on User talk:D complaining of 0WW violation. D replies on User talk:C, explains the sneaky revert, and unblocks both parties. Admin E (up to now uninvolved, stay with me here) comes to User talk:B to follow up on unrelated Article Y discussion; sees B complaining mightily but incoherently about being blocked. E reads through talk on X, A, and B and sees a lot of rudeness, blocks both editors for a day.

Editors M, N, P, and Q, friends or partisans of A and B, object loudly on talk to every turn of events; C blocks some of them, D blocks others. Meanwhile, C and D are trading insults on talk and Admin F finally steps in and blocks them for a week. Admin G unblocks everybody. Admin H discusses the situation offwiki with Admins J and K; H posts to AN with the stated intent to block all involved parties for 24 hours for violations of CIVIL and NPA. J and K endorse; H implements the blocks, which expire a day later. The case winds up at ArbCom.

I've already written my answer in detail, encrypted it, and uploaded it to a userpage. I'll give you a week to think about this case before revealing my solutions. 08:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I indefinitely block all of the parties for having names that can be confused with those of other contributors.

On a more serious note, this hypothetical isn't as clear as you'd like it to be. Can you maybe take a crack at rephrasing it with more detail? The case "winds up" at ArbCom? Why? Who brought it? What's the specific request? What's the problem the parties are asking ArbCom to address -- the rudeness, the blocking, what?

This is one of the reasons ArbCom only hears cases that involve actual interaction between users; having concrete facts gives a lot of light and shadow which throws the issues into relief. I'm sure your solution to the conundrum is great, but that in part may be because you understand the underlying facts. Read your hypothetical again, trying to clear your previous knowledge of the issue. I'll submit to you that it is hard, and possibly impossible, to actually understand what happened.

I'm not trying to dodge your question, and if you'll make your question a little less hypothetical, I'll do the same with my answer. Don't be afraid, be bold: take the example you're thinking of, and provide links to it. It's the wiki. Let's use it. Nandesuka 16:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you deal with abuse of authority by administrators, meaning by this application of blocks as punitive measures and use of blocks in unclear PA cases, as per WP:BLOCK. Would you protect the sysop no matter what or would you defend policy above all? In other words, what do you consider more important: strict discipline or strict application of policy? Thanks.

First off I categorically reject the assumption that any block such as you describe is automatically an "abuse of authority." It might be, or it might be a good block, depending on the circumstances: that's why ArbCom cases are generally awash in evidence and findings of fact. The most important thing is writing the encyclopedia. Admins and editors are all expected to use their judgment in the pursuit of that goal. Written policies generally help editors and admins reach this goal, because it makes the expectations clear to everyone. Whenever it's possible to reach the right outcome by strict application of policy, we should. However, its important to remember that Wikipedia policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. There have been times, and will continue to be times, when strict application of the policy leads to obviously stupid results. In these cases, what usually happens is that everyone ignores the policy and comes up with something better, and then, months later, someone remembers to write down the change.

So in summary, I don't think "strict discipline" or "strict application of policy" is terribly important. What's important is strict adherence to the principle of putting the good of the encyclopedia first. Nandesuka 23:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinon is that 21 is a good age cutoff for ArbCom, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to lobby for or against such a limit. Nandesuka 02:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. I have read on several websites (they even gave links to block logs) of Wikipedia admins who do things like indefinitely blocking accounts who have not edited for months, there was no CheckUser anything, no reports, and the admin didn't give any reason, just put personal attacks as the block reason (e.g. saying "troll"). Basically such cases seem done beyond punative, but just out of bullying. I saw at least ten of these, but so far I can only find one here [1]. I don't feel like digging for hours, as I just want to ask your opinion of whether you support or oppose such admin activity because it's clear most support it. Anomo 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This question is a little vague. Can you be more specific? While CheckUser is a useful tool, it's certainly not a requirement to act against egregious and obvious sockpuppets. Nandesuka 02:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. What is your view on the current policy often called "kicking them while they're down" of deleting the user and talk pages of people who are blocked? Anomo 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who calls it that? I'm assuming you are referring to banned users, and not simply blocked users. If this assumption is correct I absolutely support and encourage it. Users who are banned lose their voice in our community. Nandesuka 02:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. What is your view on the practice on Wikipedia where a person blanks out text on talk pages because the text mentioned something wrong the person did or defeated them in an argument? The text blanked usually has no reason given. When there is a reason given, it's only a fake reason. In rare cases, the text is not blanked, but the entire talk page is archived including discussions hours old, blanking it out. Anomo 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example of what you mean? I don't quite understand your question. Nandesuka 02:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup question purely about archiving all discussion even one minutes old: I asked about several things, here but the part seems to be ignored by most I ask it to. I have seen where there is heated debate, someone who dislikes the debate or is losing (I have usually seen admins do this) they will archve the entire talk page of an article, including discussions hours old (sometimes minutes), just say archiving and the talk page is empty. Two examples come to mind, but if I name them I might risk offending the admins so I would rather not. Anomo 03:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them? Anomo 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking protecting talk pages should be avoided. Protecting the talk page of a banned (as opposed to merely blocked) user is perfectly appropriate, and should be done as a matter of course. Protecting the talk page of a blocked user can be acceptable if the user continues to use her or his talk page in an inappropriate manner after being warned. Nandesuka 02:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Why do you feel in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has always sided with the admins? Anomo 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mu. Your premise is false. ArbCom has not always sided with admins in disagreements between non-admins and administrators. Nandesuka 02:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will bring a drive to provide transparency, accountability, and respect for process, while still vigorously protecting the encyclopedia from vandals, trolls, and those who would do it harm. Nandesuka 03:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the ArbCom elections are coming up very soon and I was wondering if you would give your public assurance not to vote or comment on other candidates. I think this will help keep friction to a minimum. Imagine how ugly it would be if two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other both ended up sitting on the ArbCom together. I think, in the best interests of decorum, these kind of conflict of interest issues should be avoided. Do you agree? --Cyde Weys 20:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree that candidates should not comment or vote on other candidates. Arbitrators are expected to write decisions which will, inevitably, offend many people, sometimes including other arbitrators. If arbitrators who are at loggerheads are elected, it is their joint responsibility to find a way to work together for the good of the encyclopdia. And, frankly, if another candidate thinks I'm a wifebeating childhater, it's probably better for the community to know that before they elect both of us to the committee.

All of that being said, I don't have any interest in saying negative things about any of the candidates, because I believe that everyone's records speak more loudly than any opinion I might have. The only comment that springs to mind is a positive one, which is to say that I think Geogre will make a superb arbitrator, and I hope that he is elected. I'm my own person, but to the extent that I strive to emulate any other editor in the race, I'm striving to emulate him.

I fully intend to vote, and I certainly hope that all the other candidates vote. I share your desire that everyone -- whether candidate or not -- avoid vehement public attacks. Nandesuka 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say "People who only disrupt the encyclopedia should be banned", which is fair enough, but surely a bit obvious. Where do you stand on more difficult cases, e.g. where 90% of the edits from a school IP are vandalism? Or where an editor occasionally does good work, but sometimes seems to delight in hard to fix vandalism?

--Merlinme 13:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have little tolerance for vandalism. I find the claim "you should excuse my vandalism because I do some good work sometimes" to be singularly insulting to the thousands of Wikipedia editors who do good work and never vandalize. So for me, that case isn't hard. (I'm assuming, from your question, that you're referring to a user who engages in a pattern of vandalism, not just a single example — anyone can make a mistake once or twice)

The school IP question is harder, but if the situation is truly 90/10%, I think it's reasonable for the encyclopedia to defend itself. Also, note that bans of IP ranges are actually a fairly good way to catch the attention of those closer to the vandals. Sometimes, organizations have been willing to work with Wikipedia to reduce the incidence of such vandalism. That's a happier outcome for all involved. Nandesuka 12:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

My reasons for this question are three-fold.

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

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

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

I'd continue editing precisely as I have in the past eighteen months. Nandesuka 12:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

It would be tasteless for me to comment on this. Other candidates are free to speak for themselves. Nandesuka 12:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

See my answer to JzG, above. Nandesuka 12:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

No. Nandesuka 12:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia is structurally incapable of dealing with an explosion of dedicated editors deciding to behave badly. Fortunately, I don't think any such explosion is imminent. If that happened, I believe it would be a Foundation issue, and not something the ArbCom could handle. Nandesuka 12:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I like editing articles and helping other people edit articles. Nandesuka 12:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly evaluate and/or comment article 911. As a reader do you find that piece factual and accurate? As an editor do you find it satisfying (with regards to our fundamental Wiki policies and guidelines)? As future arbitrator how do you feel about status quo imposed on that and similar "ever burning" editorials? Lovelight 10:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a reader, it seems well-sourced and does not obviously advance theories that don't originate in reliable sources. There's always a risk of selection bias, but nothing jumps out at me. My one criticism would be that given the article's length, it probably makes more sense to break out some of the sections (eg "Long term effects") into their own articles. But given the scope of the topic, that's a thing about which reasonable people can disagree.

I'm not sure what you mean by "status quo imposed." Are you talking about the semi-protection, or something else? Please clarify and I'll do my best to answer. Thanks. Nandesuka 12:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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