Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Floquenbeam

Floquenbeam

I'm concerned that there won't be nine solid candidates for ArbCom this year. To be honest, I can think of many people who - if they ran - I would vote for before I'd vote for me. But most of them aren't going to run. If you can find nine candidates you think will make great arbs, that's fantastic. Vote for them, please. But if you can't quite get to nine, then a vote for me is a vote for a non-insane, reasonably intelligent, non-dogmatic, middle of the road person with no agenda, no point to make, and who is willing to help out. You could do worse. (campaign slogan: "Floquenbeam! You could do worse!")

I'm not a content builder. But I respect those who are, I try to help them when I can, and I at least try to stay out of their way.

If elected, I'm not going to be a terribly active arb. I'll be as active as I reasonably can, based on my real life. I guess my theory is, that might not be a bad thing.

I may not answer all the questions; I certainly won't answer them with NYB-level verbiage. I'll try to answer enough to give you a clear feel for who I am and how I approach things. If I skip one (or skimp on one) that you think is really important, poke me on my talk page.

Miscellanea:

Created Floquenbeam in 2008.
Became an admin in 2010.
Had an account before this one, abandoned for privacy reasons; a checkuser (User:Alison) and a 'crat (User:WJBscribe) know that account's name, and confirmed in the linked RFA above that I had no skeletons in my closet when I retired it. Haven't used it for 5 years, so I think it's a moot point.
Never been (intentionally) blocked, never been sanctioned. There was an ArbCom case request that included me as a party, but it wasn't accepted. (Link just before it was archived: [1])
I'm (grudgingly) willing to give my name to the WMF.
I also edit with Special:Contributions/Floquensock, Special:Contributions/Floquenstein's monster, and Special:Contributions/Floquenphone, though extremely sparingly.
I promise not to block anyone on ArbCom while I'm on it.

Thanks for considering this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

General questions

What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?
I don't have any special experience in real life that would prepare me for ArbCom (not a lawyer or a politician!). I'm just someone who is reasonably familiar with how Wikipedia operates, I've been here now around 6 years, I'm older than the median editor by decades, and I think I've acquired a certain amount of clue in that time. Also a certain amount of cynicism, but I've figured out how to keep that more or less in check.
What experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.
When I have free time, I often look at WP:AN/WP:ANI for threads that I might be able to help with: messed up enough that they need some outside help, but not so dysfunctional that all hope is lost and it would be a timesink. Formal mediation is for content, and as I already mentioned in my statement, that isn't me, so I've never participated in mediation. As far as I recall, I've never participated heavily in an ArbCom case, although when the spirit moves me I'll comment about accepting/rejecting cases that are still in the "requests" stage. I won't lie; this lack of intimate knowledge about ArbCom's inner workings is a weakness. However, I think it's balanced by the strength of not being the kind of person that loves to participate in ArbCom cases.
Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions?
Just comparing my actions at places like AN/ANI and WP:AIV to others' actions, I think I generally tend to be more lenient than average with people that I still think might be editing in good faith, or might be quietly talked into different behavior, and harsher than average once I decide that I don't think they're editing in good faith or they aren't going to change.
Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
I can't think of any conflicts of interest at all in real life; I suppose if something regarding my place of employment came up, but seeing that it is a 3 line stub, I doubt that will happen. I'm not an activist by nature, there is nothing in real life that would impact my arb'ing. I suppose there are a few editors who have gotten under my skin enough that I'd recuse if they came up in a case, but I can count them on one hand.
Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?
Well there are lots of possible real life circumstances that could affect my participation, but none that I know of right now. However, keep in mind per my statement that I don't plan to be highly active, so as circumstances change in real life, I expect my ArbCom activity to ebb or flow, rather than start or stop. However, if circumstances do change significantly, to the point where I think I'm nearly useless, I'll resign rather than just being a cipher.
Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.
If anyone wants to ask my opinion about a specific case, I'll answer, but I haven't watched many cases recently. Again, I accept this lack of familiarity with other cases could be considered a weakness to my candidacy, but I maintain it would also be a valuable perspective to have a few non-political people not overly interested in ArbCom politics on the actual committee.
The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?
The "good or bad trend" part is not really an important question. As for criteria I would use to accept a case, it wouldn't be much different than what most arbs appear to be using now: is this a problem that the community has tried and failed to solve? Or one that, by it's nature, the community can't solve? Is it one where ArbCom could actually solve anything? If the evidence is incontrovertible, can it be handled by motion? Regarding admin misuse of tools, I will be less likely to take a case than some would prefer if I think it's an isolated incident, and more likely to take a case than some would prefer if it appears it is a pattern where the admin has refused to change, even if the misuse itself might be considered minor.
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?
In general, I'm not running as a "candidate for change". In addition, it's difficult to answer this before I've had to deal with ArbCom's procedures. Once I see how it's run on the back end, if I see anything I think could be run better, I'll suggest it.
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?
In general, I'm not running as a "candidate for change". ArbCom can be dysfunctional, but I don't have any brilliant insight on how to make it less so. If I am voted in, and ever decide I think ArbCom should have a different role in the community, I'll propose it as an ordinary editor somewhere; I wouldn't have the right to try to reform the role of ArbCom just because I was an arb.
Regarding WMF and ArbCom, I will say that based on the partial information available to me, I'm not impressed with the role WMF has deferred to ArbCom regarding child protection (not the "she posted her name and age on her userpage" kind, but the serious, disturbing kind). I think ArbCom, as a collection of untrained volunteer encyclopedia editors, cannot be expected to know how to handle this, and should have nothing to do with serious child protection issues; somebody needs to get trained and paid to do this, and the people that get paid are WMF, not ArbCom.
It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?
This doesn't look like an important question. I'm not going to answer unless someone can explain why it's important.
What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?
I would hope that most BLP issues would be resolved by the community. However, the BLP policy isn't as black and white as some people think, so I can see how occasionally an actual BLP-related case can make its way to ArbCom. The Manning case, for example, had reasonable, rational people on both sides, in addition to the jerks on both sides. In BLP-related issues, I believe that if it unclear what exactly we should do, we should err on the side of least possible harm to the living person affected, until a calm rational discussion could be held, even if it seems reasonable that another option will ultimately prevail after a discussion. For example, in the Manning case, I would have supported a move to Chelsea Manning, as the least possible harm to the living person affected, while the last discussion played out. Once that discussion was held, I'd support whatever it decided.
Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the checkuser and oversight userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?
To be perfectly honest, not bloody often. I would feel much more comfortable asking other committee members who actually have technical clue about the results of a checkuser, rather than run one myself. I'm not positive enough to say outright that I wouldn't request that user right, but I don't think I would. If I saw something in the course of ArbCom business that required an emergency oversight, I'd want to be able to do that, so yes, I will accept that user right if elected.
Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
That's too general a question to answer; too many different possibilities. What I would do depends on what exactly happens; I would either ignore it, or quit, or somewhere in between. If the actual question behind this question is "have you thought this through, are you willing to take the risk?", then the answer is yes. If the actual question is "are you willing to identify yourself to everyone?", then the answer is no. If the actual question is "what exactly would you do?", then the answer is I don't know.
Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not?
I don't think I can answer that in detail without having seen the kind of information we're talking about. I'll try to answer in generalities. In real life, I think when balancing an individual's right to privacy with a community's desire to police itself, the right to privacy should be given an extraordinarily high weight; for example, I hate the PATRIOT act. On a private website with voluntary participation, this concern has less weight, but it is still very high in my book, probably higher than the average. I would tend to err on the side of deleting the information, unless there was a very clear and precise reason not to, and would not be in favor of keeping J. Edgar Hoover type files on lots of people. That said, (a) am I correct that records of Checkuser data are kept independently of ArbCom?, and (b) it's kind of hard to get someone to "forget" that User:Example is really John Q. Smith, so this "err on the side of privacy" sounds nice in theory, but I doubt it means much in actual practice.
Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole?
I can't think of a circumstance where action should be taken against a user based on evidence not shared with them. If it's privacy-related, I suppose I can imagine a situation where all of the details aren't shared with the user, but I would think it's in everyone's best interests to minimize any Kafkaesque actions by ArbCom. I can think of more situations where the community isn't informed of all the details, again mostly relating to the privacy of the person supplying the evidence, or the person being sanctioned in some way, but usually even then a general outline of what is going on should be provided.
That said, I suppose in the interests of fairness I should point out that, in general, I am not a serious ArbCom critic who believes they are acting as some kind of star chamber. There are far too many disparate voices on the current committee for them to be an effective conspiracy.

Individual questions

Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question |Q=Your question |A=}}

Questions by Sven Manguard

What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation?
More or less answered in general question 7 above; if evidence is simple and incontrovertible, and range of possible actions is relatively narrow, a motion is much shorter than a case and a good idea.
When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active ArbCom case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
Please identify a few motions from 2013 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did. Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5.
The "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion has proven to be hugely controversial. What (if anything) did ArbCom do right in this matter. What (if anything) did ArbCom do wrong in this matter.
In the aftermath of the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion, several Arbs laid out their reasoning in extensive detail and debated people that disagreed with their decision. While it is not uncommon for individual Arbs to explain their reasoning in greater detail, it is uncommon for so many of them to do so, to do in the midst of a hostile debate. Do you believe that the ArbCom members' explaining of their position was constructive, or did it only add fuel to an already large fire? Do you believe that ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning in great detail regularly?
To answer the general part of this question, I think Arbs should explain their reasoning, perhaps not with "great" detail, but in some detail on-wiki.
Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
I suspect this is one of those things where people think complete openness is obviously a good thing, until they get on the committee and realize it isn't as simple as all that. I sometimes converse with friends about Wikipedia-related things that I don't want to say on-Wiki. I'm sure you have as well, I'm sure almost everyone has. I don't think we necessarily need to see all the sausage making. I want on-wiki decisions to be explained, and argued for, but I don't know that I want to forbid or severely restrict all off-wiki communication between arbs. They'd probably end up just emailing each other individually, anyway.
The above question (Q6) was asked to every candidate last year, with several of the ultimately elected candidates pledging to make ArbCom procedures more public, or at least expressing support for such an idea. There has been, as far as I can tell, no progress on the issue.
- If you are a current ArbCom member: What, if anything, has happened on this issue in the past year? What role, if any, are you personally playing in it?

- If you are not a current ArbCom member: If you made a commitment above (in Q6) to bring increased transparency to ArbCom, only to reach the body and find that the rest of the committee is unwilling to move forward on the issue, what would you do?

- All candidates: Do you have any specific proposals that you can offer to address this issue?

For myself, I plan to limit my participation on the mailing list to what I think is needed or reasonable, and do everything else on-wiki. If I see what I consider an abuse of the mailing list, I'll ask them to stop it. but I don't plan to try to organize a major shift in how the mailing list works for everyone, though.

@Sven Manguard: This is, IMHO, an unreasonable number of questions for one user to ask all of the candidates to answer. The number of General Questions was limited for a reason. Are there, say, two of them you find particularly important? Or any that are specifically directed to me? If you identify those, I'll take a stab at them. If anyone else really wants a particular one or two of these answered, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say that I find this comment disheartening. I subscribe heavily to the "If you can't handle the workload from election questions, you won't be able to handle the workload from cases" theory. It will take you what, an hour, to answer all of these? There are three large sets of questions, plus the large set of general questions (most of these are from the 2012 set, by the way), plus a few one-offs. If you're not willing to spend five hours answering questions, why hope to I have that you'll be willing to spend five hours reading evidence pages? So, I guess my answer is 無. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I'll pick the ones I think I would most like the answers to, if I were considering whether to vote for me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sven, Arbs need to know how to prioritize, how to triage demands on their time, and when to say no. The key to managing the workload is to set reasonable limits and to communicate those limits upfront, which is what Floquenbeam is doing here. So I view his response to you (and to others who have posted voluminous questions) as encouraging. MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's unreasonable to expect voters to be able to read through all these questions as well. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
My view is that that was more than 2.5 years ago. In general, I think dragging Arbcom cases out is detrimental to everyone involved.
What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and WP:OWN? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community?
Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
zOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept a case, or act by motion, related to either a) abuse of the tools, or b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator?
Abuse of tools: When conduct appears to be part of a pattern, and when the admin has not indicated a willingness to accept feedback from others and adjust their behavior on their own. Conduct unbecoming: I guess I'd say that I know it when I see it.
What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas?
What is your definition of "outing"?
What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Wikipedia, and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?
Have you been in any content disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any content disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?
Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?
Have you read the WMF proposal at m:Access to nonpublic information policy (which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)?
As it is currently written, yes I can meet the proposed ID requirement.

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: This is, IMHO, an unreasonable number of questions for one user to ask all of the candidates to answer. The number of General Questions was limited for a reason. Are there, say, two of them you find particularly important? Or any that are specifically directed to me? If you identify those, I'll take a stab at them. If anyone else really wants a particular one or two of these answered, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, I believe that the ability to answer a massive volume of questions is a good indication of whether the candidate is able to handle the workload of being an arbitrator. --Rs chen 7754 22:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I'll pick the ones I think I would most like the answers to, if I were considering whether to vote for me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Mark Arsten

In an administrator's noticeboard discussion about a year ago, you said "...community bans are stupid, with no real benefit except the warm sanctimonious feeling they create...". Do you still feel the same way about bans? As an arbitrator, are there specific circumstances in which you would support issuing community bans?
Thank you for asking only one question, Mark, and one specifically applicable to me. I'll return the favor by answering yours first. I'll be more precise than I was last year. The typical community ban as it occurs on WP:AN orWP:ANI is stupid. It's almost always an already-indef-blocked editor, who no admin is going to unilaterally unblock (the only significant difference), and it almost always turns into a two minutes hate (I think I broke the Orwell corollary to Godwin's Law, only half an hour into my candidacy). Those discussions ("Strong Support: we must show him that he has betrayed the trust of the community") turn my stomach. Actual honest-to-God community ban discussions on AN/ANI, about an editor who is currently editing, are not stupid, just extraordinarily rare. ArbCom is a different kettle of fish; you never (to my knowledge) see them banning someone already indef blocked, and you never (to my knowledge) see them engaging in a two minutes hate.

Questions from Collect

I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter three were actually general questions asked in 2012, which I asked be used again.

An arbitrator stated during a case "I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
No.
Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper?
Noting the question is worded in a non-neutral way, yes in general I would expect topic bans to be based on findings about a particular editor
Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions?
I will read and weigh all evidence and workshop pages; I won't guarantee at this time my level of participation in the workshop pages. I can imagine an arb in good faith choosing not to read the workshop, I suppose. I don't think it's OK to not read the evidence page.
Past Cases: The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?
Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?
Answered in General Question 11
Factionalism" (specifically not "tagteam" as an issue) has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?

Thank you. Collect (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: This is, IMHO, an unreasonable number of questions for one user to ask all of the candidates to answer. The number of General Questions was limited for a reason. Are there, say, two of them you find particularly important? Or any that are specifically directed to me? If you identify those, I'll take a stab at them. If anyone else really wants a particular one or two of these answered, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to ignore any questions asked by anyone at all. Four of these were from last year and asked as "general questions" of all candidates last year, and were answered by most candidates last year, so I really only added three questions. If this is too onerous, then simply skip them and I shall note that on my ACE page. I am asking the identical questions of all candidates, and so there is no way they are "aimed" at you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, I know I can ignore any I want to ignore, I just wondered whether you were interested in some more than others. I'll pick the ones I think I would most like the answers to, if I were considering whether to vote for me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Begoon

Ideally, I'd have asked one question, like Mark did, but my unconquerable tendency to long-windedness only let me cut it to 2, sorry. (I felt [a] and [b] would be cheating.) I view both these questions as utterly optional, so please don't feel obliged to answer either of them. .

You recently, commendably, put yourself in front of the community by way of an Admin review. Has that process addressed your reasons for initiating it, and has it changed, or reinforced, any particular views or concerns you had going into it? I'd also be interested in whether you think that process, or something similar, could form the basis for something formal, routine, and (kevlar vest on) maybe even mandatory.
It makes me a little more comfortable that my judgement is not significantly at odds with the people who've commented, although the way those things work, 95% of commenters are probably user talk page watchers that see the banner ad for it, so that might not be a fantastic sample. I think trying to make it mandatory would be a timesink that would end in nothing changing, so I wouldn't pursue trying to make it mandatory, but if you're just asking my opinion, I think it would be good if it were.
Your talk page currently bears the notice : "Not really completely back exactly, but kind of tentatively here-ish (Sort-of)". I feel like that most of the time, and I don't think it detracts too much from what I contribute, when I can. I'm sure someone would ask me how that affected my suitability to serve on Arbcom if I was offering to do so, though, so I'll ask you if you want to expand on the relevance, or not, of that statement to your candidacy.
That's mostly there for show by now. I took a break, and kind of eased back in. I should remove it, I suppose, but I like the purple and gold (go Huskies).

Thanks. Just one more then, if I may? I promise it will be easy and straightforward - I always save the simple questions till last... (I lie too )

Paid editing? Good? Bad? or the wrong question?
I've evolved on this. I used to be much more laissez faire, and figured that the "market would handle it": as long as the result was notable and NPOV, we should focus more on making sure it was notable and NPOV and not on "hunting" or preventing paid editors. But comments by (among others) @MastCell: have lead me to question that blanket approach, and be much more suspicious of the idea. I still don't really have a problem with occasional one-off situations (like the one described by @TParis: recently), where it looks like care was taken, it wasn't done by a PR department or a fanboy, and the COI was clearly indicated right away. But I think we need to do what we can to discourage and reduce (since we'll never be able to prevent) the influence of PR departments and guns for hire - I've finally accepted that it will be nearly impossible to maintain an NPOV article if they are too active, even if they follow policy. They do this for a living, have time and patience and money, and we don't. I don't think we can successfully muzzle them completely, but I support at the very least the idea of having them self identify and mostly make comments on the talk page, and I'd welcome any better ideas on how to reduce their advantage better.
I don't have an easy, 100% consisent solution. I guess like most things, the best we can hope for is some kind of muddle that makes no one really happy.

Questions from beyond

At first, you hear nothing, but you slowly become conscious of a low, sibilant hissing; it seems to be coming from a few feet behind you, no matter how you turn. As the hissing grows louder and ever louder, you realize that you can make out what seem to be the words of a chant, though it sounds like no language you've ever heard or want to hear; you're not sure that human throats can even produce the alien sounds. Suddenly, just before the maddening chant becomes too loud for you to bear, words spring unbidden into your mind and form a question:

The Outer Gods have become aware of the proliferation of "joke sockpuppets" within the Earthly Wikipedia, and are watching with interest the extraordinary amount of clout they possess. What will you do to combat the fierce menace of joke socks as a member of your human "Arbitration Committee"?
I desperately want to come up with a clever reply, but I just can't think of one. If I do, I'll add it later.

[At first you hear nothing, then you become conscious of a faint rasping noise. It is Darwinbish filing her sharp little teeth to a semblance of needlepoints.] Not much hope of that, so I'll help deflect the fishbowl creature. Outer Gods, just wait till I'm on ArbCom and you'll see mo better clout. My sockmaster is sure to let me run any year now. darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 23:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

So there's hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Gerda Arendt

Thank you, precious candidate, for volunteering.

Please describe what happens in this diff. You answered that question before, remember? So right to the next question: imagine you are an arb on a case, and your arb colleague presents the above diff as support for his reasoning to vote for banning the editor, - what do you do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complicated situation, probably too complicated to fit into a little box, but I'll try. We kind of already discussed this, Gerda, and I don't think you were completely happy with my reply then, but it hasn't changed much. The editor was converting a collapsed metadata box at the bottom of the article into an uncollapsed infobox at the top of the article. That in and of itself is not problematic to me, I'm agnostic on the costs/benefits of infoboxes. But if it is part of a larger pattern, if that or similar things are being done a lot when it is known that there is disagreement, then I think it could be considered evidence of disruption. I'm not saying it was in this case, having not studied the evidence or workshop. But I don't think you and I are going to agree on whether it was prima facie unfair or not; I don't think it was.
You know too much ;) - please try again and keep it simple. Your arb colleague presents the above diff as support for his reasoning to vote for banning the editor, - I would ask him why, because uncollapsing an infobox follows the MOS and is improving Wikipedia, no? - Similar things should be done, no? (Hint: perhaps look at the history and talk of that article, something the colleague probably also should have done. Don't be afraid: it's rather short.)
After looking at the talk page and article history, Gerda, I'd have to say that my comment stands. I see nothing on the talk page that mitigates the reversion of the metadata box back to the infobox while discussion is ongoing and consensus not yet reached on the talk page. Not a serious problem taken on its own; people do that everyday, content disputes are messy, and indeed others were doing the same thing back the other way. But I don't see anything that would prevent that from being given as an example of a wider problem. I suppose you could take some comfort from knowing that if I was presented with that as evidence of a pattern of tendentious editing, I'd ask for more evidence than that one diff.
You probably looked at the article history enough to see that the infobox was added by the author of the article. How is there anything "contentious" that needs consensus? Does following the MOS need consensus? The supporters of "no infobox" claim the right of the principal author to make that content decision all the time.
Gerda, it feels like we're kind of going in circles now, aren't we? As a stand-alone edit, that edit is one of many disappointing edits made by both sides on that page, and isn't particularly damning. I note the article today has an infobox, based on the wishes of the original author (you). If I were to have participated in that discussion, I would have supported including an infobox as well, for that very reason. But as an example of someone reverting while discussion is ongoing, as an example of someone whose typical approach was "I understand MoS and you don't", as an example of someone who was fighting that battle at the same time across many pages, it's a valid example of problematic behavior.
As we will disagree on this (but now I admit that I had an interest that was served, I found the edit not disappointing but correcting a mistake, and my interest could have served sooner if nobody had reverted my infobox (twice), but perhaps discussed single parameter without a "battle" feeling) to the next: imagine further that after said arb voted to ban the editor, and an equal number of arbs voted against it, it's your turn to cast the one and final vote that will ban or not. Will you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have voted for a topic ban, but against a site ban. In spite of the fact that several editors whose opinions I respect were suggesting a site ban, and in spite of the fact that he often rubs me the wrong way as well, the encyclopedia is clearly better off with him contributing, if we can find a way to do that while stopping the disruption.

Thank you, passed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Carrite

Thanks for running. I bring this matter up numerous times a year at RFA, so don't think I'm being nihilistic here — I do think it a very serious matter...

ArbCom is the highest elected office on Wikipedia, with great powers and great responsibilities. We have had at least one Administrator sneak through the vetting process at RFA because of alternative accounts which were not specified and therefore not scrutinized — with disastrous results. Moreover, since you brought up the matter in your statement I feel it both necessary and appropriate to ask this now: What was the name of your previous main account? Did you ever edit under any other user names other than that one and this one? If so, what were these? Carrite (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that without that name, you have to oppose, that's fine. But this isn't really a question, is it? It's more a statement with a question mark at the end. You already know the answer, this is just a way to make your unhappiness at not knowing it more prominent. Any privacy reasons would be negated if I turned around and named it now. I haven't edited with other accounts besides the old one, and the accounts I listed in my statement, but if I'm as dishonest as you seem to think I could be, then I'm not sure why you'd trust that statement either.

That is indeed what I believe. I will be voting "Oppose" and I urge others to do likewise. We can not have Arbs with undisclosed previous accounts, in my opinion. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Wizardman

I am shocked that this question hasn’t been asked above, as I feel it is simple yet says a great deal about any candidate. No wrong answer to this question aside from “I don’t know”.

As an arbitrator, what would you do? In other words, would you primarily work on cases, subcommittees, another arbitrator responsibility?
I plan to participate mostly in cases, due to the relatively lower-than-average expected participation I mention in my statement. But I would imagine (and as partially confirmed by descriptions from Risker and NW elsewhere on-wiki), the flow and scope and organization of ArbCom business is probably not fully appreciated until one is actually there, so I imagine my plans will change rapidly if elected. But that's the plan for now, FWIW.

Question from Hawkeye7

You say that you are not a content builder, but I respect those of us who are. In what ways will you help us content creators?
If I were on ArbCom, I would try to help remove from the project (or from the problem topic area, if I felt that would actually solve the problem) those who are driving away those creating quality content by civil-POV pushing, WP:SOUPish behavior, wearing down people with endless repetitive argument, frivolous red herrings about WP:OWN accusations, and MMORPG players. I would not completely ignore the "civility pillar" (although I probably have a reputation for being someone who would ignore it, I'm not), but I wouldn't make it so much more important that the other four, and I wouldn't make it so one sided.
I'm not marketing myself as "the content builder's best friend", I'm probably not. But I'm trying to make clear that I am not their enemy.

Questions by Darkness Shines

This is about the response above, as you know I am not, shall we say, the most civil of people, I do however work damned hard on content (three new article this week alone) So the question is, I am quite often rude, but also a content creator, how would you deal a person like me?
Well, since you ask, I'd say that I'm not terribly impressed by someone who created 3 articles this week and who thinks this is a reason to be smug about his own rudeness. There are many people hard at work on here who have written/significantly improved that many or more this week, without being an jerk. Even in that topic area. That said, I'd take into consideration whether you were being baited, whether you were baiting others, whether this was occasional or more frequent or nearly constant, and whether you and the people you're being rude to are helping or hurting building an encyclopedia. Writing content isn't some sort of get out of jail free card, but being rude (on its own) isn't a go directly to jail card either.

Question from Tryptofish

What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the arbcom-l e-mail list, as proposed at the bottom of this draft page and in this discussion?
This is a hard problem to answer, mostly because I don't really know what actually goes on there. I think it's really hard to be for or against that proposal until I've seen the mailing list up close. But rather than brush this question off, I'll answer in more general terms, in case that helps.
I do want more transparency than we sometimes see now; I generally want to minimize pronouncements posted as a fait accompli on-wiki for the first time. We should get input from the community where possible. However, since I don't think there is some kind of ArbCom conspiracy to take over the encyclopedia (at least, there hasn't been for a few years), I expect that most of the time, there is actually a reason the discussion happens on the mailing list. The committee could do a better job explaining why it was done the way it was done, proactively rather than in response to angry editors. Decisions should always give who was for it, who was against it, but it seems like that's now always done, AFAICT.
I obviously want a safe place for people to report confidential and/or privacy-related information, and don't think anything should be published if there was an expectation of privacy. I'm not impressed with the level of privacy available on the mailing list, but don't know what else you could do.
I'm not in favor of "doing away" with case-related discussion on the mailing list. I can see the benefit of an off-wiki place to discuss case-related issues before they're fully developed. My impression is that less off-wiki discussion and more on-wiki discussion would be a good direction, but how far to move in that direction is too difficult to say if I don't know the ratio now.
If there is a problem with unnecessary or inappropriate discussion on the mailing list, it should be stopped. I believe that was an issue before the last election, I don't know how big a deal it is now. It sounds like your linked discussion would be a good step in that direction.
Those are my general thoughts. Specific priorities would have to wait until when/if I'm on the committee.

Question from SirFozzie

First off, thanks for running. Considering that the amount of work required as an arbitrator has been compared to that of a second full time job, do you think voters should be concerned that you go so far as to state in your nomination statement that you're not sure how much time you'll be able to devote to the position?
It's a tradeoff. People would be getting a less-than-fully-active arb, but they'd be getting one who (IMHO, of course) is reasonable, thoughtful, and would make decision that were ultimately good for the encyclopedia. If I were presented with that choice, or someone who could devote 30 hours a week to the task, but who was not reasonable, or not thoughtful, or who had an agenda that I thought would end up hurting the encyclopedia, the decision would be easy for me. If you find 9 Arb candidates who have said they'll devote lots of time to being an Arb, and that you think would be great Arbs, then it would be stupid to vote for me. If you can't, I think it makes sense not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Question from Sceptre

Between allowing a fringe POV pusher to roam free in Sexology, the massive embarrassment of the Manning dispute, and ArbCom instructing admins to undelete libel (see Jimbo's talk page), how would you seek to repair Wikipedia's reputation amongst LGBT–especially transgender–lay-readers?
Mu.

Question from John Cline

Does a user have the "Wikipedia right" to contribute to and edit [Wikipedia] provided they do not violate the Foundation's Terms of Use?
There's no such thing as a "Wikipedia right". What are you really trying to ask here?

I'm sorry my question seems to carry a hidden context. I would hope to have asked if a user had any semblance of a "right to edit" Wikipedia. And I would hope that your giving the correct answer means the question managed somehow to hit its mark, perhaps subconsciously. Thank you for answering me; even answering promptly. And good luck as well.—John Cline (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please describe an example that would justify site banning a user when no "Wikipedia misconduct" was ever alleged.
Considering your first question, I don't know what you mean by "Wikipedia misconduct". Do you just mean violating the ToU? You can be blocked/banned for lots of things that don't violate the ToU but do violate WP policy. You can even be blocked if you haven't edited Wikipedia at all. For example, if a user violated WP:CHILDPROTECT on another wiki, I'd happily permablock their account on this one too (if they weren't universally locked by whoever has that power on Meta).

Note that I added the sentence in italics later; I'd intended to add it when answering, and evidently removed it by accident. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Floquenbeam. Your answer is fine, though I'd like to clarify a point in your premise. Considering the ToU requires users to "adhere to applicable community policies", it does seem impossible to find "lots of things that don't violate the ToU but do violate WP policy." It was this encompassing nature that prompted me to cite "violations of our Terms of Use" instead of policy violations alone.—John Cline (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Piotrus

(Note borrowed from Rschen7754): The questions are similar to those I asked in 2012. If you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)?
kind of answered in one of Gerda's questions above.
Numerous ArbCom (also, admin and community) decisions result in full site bans (of varying length) for editors who have nonetheless promised they will behave better. In essence, those editors are saying "let me help" and we are saying "this project doesn't want your help". How would you justify such decisions (blocking editors who promised to behave), against an argument that by blocking someone who has promised to behave better we are denying ourselves his or her help in building an encyclopedia? What is the message we are trying to send? (You may find this of interest in framing your reply)
Assuming it's a valid site ban, the message we're sending is "you 'helping' will cause more trouble than it's worth".
to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is to...?)
The United States justice model has the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate). Is something to applaud or criticize?
a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
I respect editors privacy with regards to their name. I however think that people entrusted with significant power, such as Arbitrators, should disclose to the community at least their age, education and nationality. In my opinion such a disclosure would balance the requirements for privacy (safeguarding Arbitrators from real life harassment), while giving the community a better understanding of background and maturity of those entrusted with such a significant power. Would you be therefore willing to disclose your age, education and nationality? If not, please elaborate why.
I've already said on-wiki that I'm around 50 and an American and an engineer. I guess it can't hurt to say I've got a graduate degree, although I don't really see how it helps anything either.

Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:MONGO

Please detail your most significant Featured or Good article contributions. GAN, FAC or even Peer Review contributions qualify as evidence of teamwork in bringing an article(s) to a higher level of excellence.
Zero, as mentioned in my statement. As also mentioned in my statement, I think I have other redeeming qualities, though.

Question from User:Jclemens

Do you see anything wrong with blocking a sitting arbitrator? Do you see anything wrong with your subsequently volunteering to sit on the electoral commission when that arbitrator (me) was up for reelection? Feel free to elaborate on your understanding of WP:INVOLVED and why you believed that the second action didn't pose a problem in light of your earlier block.
There's nothing inherently wrong with blocking a sitting arbitrator if they're violating policy, harming the encyclopedia, and won't stop. That's generally unlikely to happen, so blocking an Arb isn't a common occurance. But there is something wrong with imposing a block that you know won't have consensus, and since I knew you'd be unblocked, I shouldn't have done so. But that was more an expression of my despair at the way you were allowed to smugly insult someone, secure in your cloak of ArbCom invincibility, who'd have been blocked for saying the same to you. Note that I've promised in my statement not to block an Arb again, even if they deserve it; I figure I get to do something dramaqueen-ish once every 10 years, so my next opportunity is 2022.
If you read the entire EC page you link to, you'll see that I said I would have recused in anything relating to you, and when someone pointed out that it might complicate EC discussions, I bowed out. But that was my choice; I don't think you have veto power over who tries to help out in what capacity. If I'd been chosen to be on the EC and had recused from any issues related to you, it would have been ethical, just not the most practical. Hence the withdrawl. Rest assured that if you ever come before ArbCom, I'll recuse in that matter as well.

Question from User:Worm That Turned

Firstly, please accept my apologies for adding to the list of questions! I'm one of the less controversial arbitrators but even I have had my writing twisted, my honesty questioned, my personality derided. I've been the target of unpleasant emails and real life actions. Other arbitrators have been subject to much worse. Have you thought about how being an arbitrator might affect you and what have you done to prepare?
As to whether I'm prepared for the slings and arrows on-wiki: ArbCom makes good and bad decisions, and is not immune to criticism. But on the whole it's almost entirely composed of decent people trying the best they can for no pay and long hours and fuck-all in the way of respect. I'm going to ignore a lot of hyenas and jackals, who relish a new case because they can run to WT:ACN and spend weeks complaining about how the decision is one more example of how horrible ArbCom is. I plan to constructively engage with anyone who politely but firmly tells me I'm full of crap about something; even if I won't enjoy prolonged arguing, I take the responsibility seriously and owe it to people to explain my votes or comments.
Off-wiki harassment is a concern, but having thought long and hard about it, it's a risk and a cost I'm willing to bear. I've simultaneously tried to limit the linking of this account to my real world ID, and arranged to minimize potential damage if/when the link is made. My employer knows, my family knows, so I'm not at risk of "blackmail", for lack of a better term, just at risk of harassment.

Question from User:HectorMoffet

The number of Active Editors on EnWP has been in decline since 2007.

This decline has been documented extensively:

In our own "Editor Trends Study"
In popular media ("Nobody wants to edit Wikipedia anymore")
In scholarly literature ("How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline")

This raises several questions:

Is this really problem? Or is it just a sign of a maturing project reaching an optimum community size now that the bulk of our work is done?
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the EnWP Community?
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the Foundation?
Lastly, what steps, if any, could be taken by ArbCom?
I'll answer this series of questions by answering the last one. There is very little ArbCom can, or should, do about it. That sounds like a perfect job for GovCom, but there is no GovCom. I think WP could definitely use one, though I regret to say I don't really see any hope of that happening anytime soon (hopefully I'm wrong). I don't know how you can convince a bunch of anarchists to give up on the anarchy and create a governing body. But I don't think ArbCom should try to become GovCom, or try to decide how it works. I'm not running for GovCom.
ArbCom is about resolving intractible disputes. That's the only thing I'm offering to help out with.

Additional Question from Carrite

Sorry that this comes so late in the game. What is your opinion of the website Wikipediocracy? Does that site have value to Wikipedia or is it an unmitigated blight? If it is the latter, what do you propose that Wikipedia do about it? To what extent (if any) do you feel that abusive actions by self-identified Wikipedians on that site are actionable by ArbCom?
I'm unimpressed with the overall quality of discourse there, and bemused/puzzled by the amount of time several people spend on that site commenting about what losers people are for spending all their time on Wikipedia - I can only read it in doses before I have to recalibrate my irony meter. There are occasionally useful things that come up there, but it's like trying to sift a lost ring out of a septic tank. I certainly don't think it's successfully meeting its mission statement. I don't propose WP do anything about it, any more than I propose we try to "solve" the problem of the comments section on Fox News; it is a private website outside our remit, and there is no shortage of idiots on the internet. I definitely don't think anyone should be sanctioned just for participating there, or for linking to it here in general, but yes, in the infrequent case where a self-identified editor here (in a way that prevents a joe job) does something there that severely damages our ability to create a collaborative encyclopedia, I'd have no problem removing them from editing here if I thought it would help.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from iantresman

How important do you think is transparency and accountability for Admins and Arbitrators, bearing in mind that: (a) Checkuser and Oversight have no public logs, even though we could say who accesses these features (without necessarily giving compromising information)? (b) ArbCom has its own off-site discussion area.
I see lots of ArbCom cases where editors contribute unsubstantiated acusations without provided diffs, and often provide diffs that don't backup the allegations. Do you think ArbCom should do anything about it? (ie. strike though allegations without diffs).
Incivility on Wikipedia is rife. Sometimes it is ambiguous and subjective. But where it is clear, why do you think enough is done to uphold this core policy?
Editors whose username lets them be identified easily in real life, are frequently subjected to "oppositional research" by anonymous editors who can readily achieve WP:PRIVACY. Do you think this double standard is fair, and should anything be done?
I see lots of ArbCom cases where Arbitrators appear to ignore the comments of the editors involved. Do you think that basic courtesies should require Arbitrators to make more than just an indirect statement, and actually address the points being made?

Question from Bazonka

Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee?

Question from user:Ykantor

Should "Petit crimes" be sanctioned? and how ?
The present situation is described as User:Wikid77#Wiki opinions continued says: "some acting as "inter-wikicity gangs" with limited civility (speaking euphemistically)...Mob rule: Large areas of wikis are run by mobocracy voting. Numerous edit wars and conflicts exist in some highly popular groups of articles, especially in recent events or news articles. In those conflicts, typically 99% of debates are decided by mob rule, not mediated reason...Future open: From what I've seen, the Wiki concept could be extended to greatly improve reliability, but allow anonymous editing of articles outside a screening phase, warning users to refer to the fact-checked revision as screened for accuracy (this eventually happened in German Wikipedia"
At the moment there is no treatment of those little crimes. i.e. deleting while cheating, lying, arguing for a view with no support at all against a well supported opposite view, war of attrition tactics, deleting a supported sentence, etc. The result is distorted articles and some fed up editors who discontinue to edit. I can provide examples, if asked for.
In my view, each of these small scale problems does not worth a sanction , but the there should be a counting mechanism, such as a user who has accumulated a certain amount of them, should be sanctioned. What is your view?
Does Our NPOV policy mean that an editor is violating the policy if he only contributes to one side?
The issue is discussed her: [2].
In my opinion, the view that every post should be neutral leads to a built in absurd. Suppose that the best Wikipedia editor is editing a group of biased articles. He is doing a great job and the articles become neutral. The editor should be sanctioned because every single edit (as well as the pattern of edits) is biased toward the other side. !
There are ignored rules. Should we change the rules or try to enforce them? how?
e.g.
As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone
lying

I can show that those 2 rules were ignored in the wp:arbcom but those are just an example. There are more ignored rules. So, Should we change the rules or try to enforce them? how?

Questions from user:Martinevans123

Yo Flo. Should articles ever use The Daily Mail as a reference source? Should articles ever use YouTube videos as external links? Is there still any place for a "WP:civility" policy, or does it depend on how many "good edits" an editor makes? Is humour now an outdated concept at Wikipedia? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]