Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Gamaliel

Gamaliel

When I first joined Wikipedia I was an awestruck admirer of the contributions of the established editors here, who were building this encyclopedia and its accompanying software, bureaucracy, policies, and principles out of sheer stubbornness, optimism, and energy. Despite all my time on Wikipedia, I still reflexively think of myself as a casual hobbyist puttering around a monument built by others. But I think it’s time I realized that I played a role in building that monument and I have a lot of experience and expertise to offer. I joined Wikipedia in February 2004 and became an administrator on November 2004. I have 57 Did You Know articles and 56,917 edits as of this writing and I make a very small cameo appearance in Fuzheado's The Wikipedia Revolution.

I think as a whole that Wikipedia does well in the areas of BLP and NPOV, though we should always strive to do better. The key issues currently facing Wikipedia basically fall under the umbrella of the core policy of civility, which we claim is one of our five pillars but we often dismissively treat as lesser policy. But how editors interact with one another has a significant implications for some of the problems we will have to wrestle with in the coming years, like dropping rates of editor retention and the gender gap. Editor behavior should be weighed against not just positive contributions to the encyclopedia, but whether this behavior contributes to an atmosphere of collaborative editing or drives away other editors we will need to meet those future challenges. We should improve how we deal with these issues and the avenues through which editors can seek assistance regarding them. And above all, we should keep in mind that editors should be allowed to make mistakes - and I know I’ve definitely made more than my share of them, and thinking of some of them can still make me wince – because it’s often through those mistakes we learn how to be better editors and build a better encyclopedia.

I use the same account and no others on all Wikimedia and Wikia websites. My identity is not secret though I prefer not to use it on Wikipedia. I disclosed my identity and age to the Wikipedia Foundation upon joining OTRS.

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've spent many years on Wikipedia and dabbled in just about every aspect of it, even a Signpost article a couple of years back. I tend to develop obsessive bursts of energy devoted to a particular topic for a short time, which seems like a good fit for dealing with an ArbCom case. And I've had more than my share of experience with the downside of editing Wikipedia (see my answer to WTT below) and I have a willingness to wade into a mess and deal with it appropriately instead of shying away from difficult matters.
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.
I have unfortunately been involved in a number of dispute resolution processes. One of the first editing conflicts I had on Wikipedia revolved around a single editor who subjected a dozen or more other editors to months of personal attacks and squabbling over the smallest of issues. While this led to a sense of camaraderie amongst us that I still remember fondly, it could have just as easily led to all of us abandoning Wikipedia and leaving the article in the hands of an editor who had no regard for civility, neutrality, or the encyclopedia as a whole. It instilled in me the conviction that we need to develop better ways of handing such troublesome editors, and I like to contribute to making this encyclopedia a friendlier place for new editors who arrive with a desire to contribute positively instead of negatively. Update: I was asked to provide some relevant links. The two cases I played the largest role in as a party are quite old but helped shape my thinking about how Wikipedia should better combat these problems: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ. I've also provided statements for a number of other ArbCom cases but I can't think of any others where I was a significant party.
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?
I tend to fall on the side of harsher sanctions. In most cases, if something arrives before ArbCom that means there have been many intermediate steps and many chances for leniency and positive resolution. Also, I find that many calls for leniency fail to take into account the negative effects such leniency may have on other editors who are subject to the behavior of a problematic editor and may only serve to empower such an editor to continue such behavior.
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 do not foresee any conflicts of interest but I would of course recuse myself when appropriate.
Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?
Outside of an unforeseen real world event, no. My real world situation is currently quite stable and will allow me the time to participate.
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.
The controversial rulings generate the most light and heat, but I think ArbCom handles most cases quite well. The Manning case immediately comes to mind, of course, as one where the committee made some significant errors. I've outlined my thinking on this in detail in my response to Sven Manguard's question 4.
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?
I don't think this is necessarily bad. ArbCom should be the last resort, not the first, and alternate methods of dispute resolution should be encouraged. I do worry that these methods have not developed sufficient robustness to cope with the quantity of disputes, but I'm not sure that ArbCom can do anything about that. Gauging the results of these alternate methods should be the first criteria used to decided whether or not to accept a case. Have these methods been tried? How successful were they? Is this a dispute incapable of being solved by these methods?
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?
Transparency and controversial rulings seem to be perennial issues, so I would encourage the committee to do more to explain their findings to the community.
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?
As the community grows larger, it becomes more difficult to rouse it to action and deal with issues confronting Wikipedia, especially systemic ones. While the nature of the community is that it is autonomous and self-governing, and this nature has allowed it to grow and build the encyclopedia so quickly, I worry that it will be unable to rise to the challenges of the future unless some sort of governance structure is built, but I also worry that that such a structure could damage the spontaneous and anarchistic nature of Wikipedia. These are issues that we need to consider as more solutions are imposed from outside Wikipedia, whether from the Foundation or in response to external stimuli like media controversies. But given the limited scope of ArbCom, many of these issues are outside the purview of the committee, and the committee can only urge the community to action and interpret the community's policies in appropriate ways.
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?
Yes, but in practice it's a fine line to walk, and I think for the most part the committee handles it well. I think the trend of encouraging the community to develop consensus on certain content or policy decisions is a good idea. This can be more difficult when an issue is controversial to a small segment of editors but the wider community takes little interest in it.
What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?
The same role that it takes with any other policy.
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?
These powers should be used very sparingly. There have been some controversies in the past over the alleged abuse of checkuser, so I think this tool should be used only when necessary and the data should of course be treated with the utmost confidentiality. Oversight should also be used sparingly, in the interests of transparency. Usually normal deletion should suffice and in most cases administrators should be trusted not to reveal deleted information.
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?
I have unfortunately already been the victim of outing and harassment multiple times due to conflicts or actions taken on Wikipedia, but fortunately this has had little in the way of real world consequences for me, other than a slightly heightened sense of paranoia. I expect this will not change should I serve as arbitrator.
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?
Future motions may revive closed cases and editors may reappear in future cases, so it seems necessary to retain some information, but no more than absolutely necessary.
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 am having difficulty envisioning a scenario where that would be appropriate. Transparency is essential for the community to have trust in the reliability of ArbCom decisions, and even if the evidence were of a nature that made it impossible to reveal publicly, an editor generally should have the right to respond to evidence presented against him or her. However, if there is a serious possibility that this evidence may result in real world consequences, such as in a case of stalking or harassment, ArbCom should keep this evidence private.

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 Gerda Arendt

Thank you for volunteering.

Basic first question of three: please describe what happens in this diff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has moved the infobox template from the bottom of the article, where it was inside a collapsible box labeled "metadata", to the top right of the article, incorporating the photograph that was already there. However, the addition of a colon made this picture unviewable, but this was certainly a typo, as the next edit removed the colon. Is this a way of asking my opinion about the recent Infobox case? Arbcom is in a difficult position on this issue because it cannot make new rules or style guidelines for the community, and this is a situation where the community has failed to create them on their own. I understand the reservations about expecting the community to come up with rules governing an issue where there appears to be little input or interest in doing so from the majority of editors, but there really is no other solution in this case.
You answered my question well. The answer to your question is no. I (only) wanted to know if you are able to read a diff, get to the facts instead of acting on opinions ;) - Second question: imagine you are an arb on a case (you know which), 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) 16:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems insufficient to justify banning. As part of a pattern of editing? If the editor knew this edit was controversial and continued to make such edits without engaging in discussion, this may justify a topic ban due to tendentious editing. An outright ban? I'd need much more evidence to justify a sanction like that.
A pattern of editing with respect for the MOS would not frighten me :) Would you perhaps look if the edit was controversial, and talk to your colleague? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, discussion would be the first thing to come to mind. I imagine my reaction would be "please show me the additional evidence that justifies this sanction." And I would indeed investigate if the edit was controversial, both in terms of whether other editors objected and how it conforms to existing guidelines and precedents.
Makes sense! 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. Assuming (because otherwise it would be too easy) you lean towards it (or will you never?): will you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 25 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?
A bit on the long side but not too bad.
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?
WikiProjects are invaluable tools to focus attention on articles that need creation or improvement and providing standardized guidelines for groups of articles. However, WikiProject guidelines cannot override the consensus of the wider 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?
Yes. This isn't a problem just with those contributors, but with the members of the community who excuse the negative behavior of those contributors because of the positive contributions they've made to the project. A single problem user can be dealt with in an appropriate manner, but not when vocal segments of the community prevent any measures to address those problems. What the Committee can do is continue to make it clear that both editor interactions and content work are part of the package of a positive contributor to Wikipedia. Update: I feel I've communicated poorly in my answer to this question as this has been interpreted as allowing POV pushing and other negative behaviors to run roughshod over content creation. On the contrary, POV pushing, incivility, and other negative behaviors interfere with content creation, even if some of the people who engage in them are content creators themselves. I feel that taking a harder line against these negative behaviors would be a net benefit to content creation and collaborative editing.
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?
It does often take two to tango, but often someone is leading and someone is following. As I said in my response to Collect's question #2 below, it is lazy and inappropriate to simply tar everyone with the same brush. It's the responsibility of the someone intervening in a dispute to determine the proportionality of blame and mete out sanctions appropriately, and the Committee has the ultimate responsibility to get such matters right.
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?
Any time that the Committee feels that an administrator is acting inappropriately and in a manner that cannot be resolved through the usual channels of noticeboards and intervention from their fellow administrators.
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?
Wikipedia has learned the hard way that actions on Wikipedia have real world consequences. We cannot deny that the reverse is true as well, that real world actions have consequences on Wikipedia. Many editors think of the issue as a jurisdictional one, that if an editor follows "the rules" of Wikipedia while on this website, their offsite actions are irrelevant. But ArbCom is not a court and it is a mistake to frame the issue in those terms. ArbCom is charged with preserving the encyclopedia and the atmosphere of collaborative editing that is necessary to create and maintain it, and it has an obligation to consider what happens offsite when it pertains to what happens onsite. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy: "The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors."
What is your definition of "outing"?
In the context of Wikipedia, I define it as publicizing private or obscure identities or other personal information in order to influence an editor's actions or the perception of their actions on Wikipedia.
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)?
I have no experience using either tool, so my opinion would be an uninformed one. My gut feeling is that oversight is used too much as I see it used way too often, but perhaps if was able to examine the evidence I might find each use was an appropriate one.
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?
Sometimes I feel like Wikipedia is one giant content dispute. I think that the primary reason that content disputes are often not resolved amicably are because editors often cannot put aside their agenda or emotions and put the encyclopedia and its principles first, both principles of content like NPOV and principles of conduct like civility and assuming good faith.
Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?
The committee should help the community meet the challenges of Wikipedia's future, which in my view revolve chiefly around editor interaction, such as checking falling rates of editor retention and addressing systemic bias like the gender gap. I think a primary way we can address these issues is by improving civility and the means through which editors can address problems.
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)?
I don't anticipate any problems meeting the requirements of this proposal.

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

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?
When it is inappropriate or impossible to deal with a matter by opening a case, such as amending a case, a minor issue, or a matter demanding absolute privacy or immediate action.
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?
When complexity or transparency demands a case be opened.
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.
Most of the motions from 2013 appear to be routine and reasonable.
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.
I remember Phil well from my early years of Wikipedia and I have a great deal of respect for him. In my experience, I've found him absolutely right on matters of policy and absolutely wrong on issues of personal interaction. In this case, he was right about Wikipedia policy in the Manning case but wrong about outing another editor. In my view, this was a completely clear cut case of outing and the committee had no choice but to act in the manner it did. Phil was the victim of perhaps the most notorious case of offsite harassment in Wikipedia history, so I expected better of him. I am unswayed by the fact that this editor's identity may have been freely given elsewhere, as most cases of outing have come from piecing together clues found on the internet just as Phil did. And I am equally unswayed by the paper-thin claim of there being a conflict of interest because the outed editor was in the US military, as this line of thinking would render most Wikipedians unable to edit a whole host of articles related to their occupations in the most tenuous of ways. That said, ArbCom made some serious errors in this case. They erred by not taking a harder line against trolling and transphobic comments. There should be no tolerance for -phobic comments of any kind, and this failure led to a perception that transphobic people and people opposed to transphobia were being treated equivalently. And the committee erred by not taking a closer look at offsite behavior in general in the past and the offsite behavior of the outed editor in particular, as he was allegedly guilty of engaging in some of the same behavior that Phil is accused of, opening the committee to accusations that they were applying different punishments to similar behaviors or targeting Phil for criticism of the committee instead of outing.
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?
When a decision is controversial, there certainly is much value in a detailed explanation behind a decision, and this should be encouraged. Even if it does not mollify critics (which should not be the goal of a decision or the explanation of a decision anyway), it may satisfy the concerns of those observing the controversy. Transparency is valuable regardless of the outcome of a particular controversy. Arbitrators should, of course, be careful not to get drawn into potentially rancorous public debate.
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?
There is a lot of value in having a discussion forum where one can be blunt and candid. I believe it serves the project in the end because arbitrators can fully examine issues without worry about public relations repercussions. I think this can be balanced with the goal of having as much transparency as possible by having arbitrators explaining their reasoning as much as they are able to in a public forum.
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?

If the committee chose not to move forward on an issue I thought was important, I would continue to be an advocate for the issue but I would also respect the consensus of the committee. There's been a number of times I've been on the wrong side of consensus on Wikipedia and realized later that I was on the wrong side of the issue as well.

Questions from Collect

I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter four 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?
Nothing is inevitable and ArbCom has a responsibility to examine the evidence before imposing sanctions. But you don't always need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
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?
I find the latter approach offensive. While in many cases, there is plenty of blame to go around, to mete out the same sanctions to everyone involved on this basis is both lazy and inappropriate. Evidence should be examined to determine which parties were instigators and which parties were egged on by circumstances or other abusive parties. Those who involve themselves in deciding such disputes have a responsibility to determine this appropriately. And if ArbCom, the forum of last resort, does not do this, who will?
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 don't know the context of that remark so I can't comment on whatever case that remark pertains to. But in general I can't imagine when it is appropriate to ignore evidence and workshop pages entirely. I have seen cases where largely irrelevant evidence is presented by parties, and it is appropriate to deem that evidence irrelevant after examining it.
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?
In answer to another question, I said that I think it is a mistake to view ArbCom as a court, so legal principles should not automatically apply. But the question of precedent is still valid one. We should look to precedents for guidance and adhere to them as much as we can in the interests of consistency and fairness. But consensus can change and we should not be bound to those precedents if consensus does change. In many ways, Wikipedia is still an experiment. As we figure out what works and what does not, we should have the flexibility to change accordingly.
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?
Of course it should be used. It explains the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. I am a firm believer in cutting to the heart of the matter, and I can't think of a better way to do that then a reference to these fundamental principles.
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?
BLP is one of our most important policies, and if we get it wrong, it could have significant potential repercussions both for the subjects of those articles and for Wikipedia itself. So naturally the committee should give significant weight to such issues, with the understanding that editors will often make well-intentioned mistakes regarding them.
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?
I believe that factionalism is a significant problem on Wikipedia and those editors who place factionalism before the core principles of Wikipedia are a detriment to this project. In some cases, however, groundless accusations of factionalism can be just as disruptive, as they violate the principle of WP:AGF and inhibit collaborative editing. Naturally, the committee should take evidence of factionalism into account, but the remedies should be based on the evidence presented and the particular disruption to the project, whether or not factionalism was in play in a particular case.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Mark Arsten

What is your opinion of paid editing? What should be the community's response to this practice?
I am opposed to paid editing and I feel the community should reject this practice. Everyone approaches editing Wikipedia with a set of inherent biases that they must attempt to put aside, but paid editing introduces incentives that incompatible with Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. Even the most scrupulous attempt at paid editing will be non-neutral, if only by omission. We see this from one of the very first attempts at paid editing from 2006, the Arch Coal article. The original, paid version omitted significant coverage and criticism of its environmental practices, which the article now covers. It is one thing to have editors of different perspectives collaborate on creating NPOV, it is quite another to expect volunteer editors to compete with the time and resources of paid advocates. Of course, were I to serve as an arbitrator, my decisions will be guided by whatever the community consensus becomes regarding this practice.

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?
Were I elected, as a new arbitrator I would follow the lead of established arbitrators and assist in tasks based on whatever was needed.

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?
I like the idea of arbitrators being able to publicly release their own messages, with quotes from the messages of others redacted. That strikes a good balance between the need for frank discussion and the need for accountability. I understand the potential need for the Committee to release emails written by others in the case of disruption or other inappropriate behavior, but I worry that this has the potential for abuse in particularly rancorous cases and may stifle frank discussion on the part of dissenters. Perhaps this should require a super-majority instead of a mere majority.

Question from User:SirFozzie

First off, thank you for volunteering. I notice in your candidate statement that with regards to BLP and NPOV, "we should always strive to do better". While arbitrators do not make policy out of whole cloth, they can be leaders in making needed changes to policy. If you could, how would YOU change BLP and NPOV to "do better".
Thank you for the personalized question. I'm afraid my statement that we are doing well in these matters has been interpreted as being naive and dismissive of these issues. The presence of problems in these areas should not prompt defeatism. I think we are doing well as a whole. Editors respond swiftly when alerted to problems in these areas, and we have multiple forums to address these problems and a corps of volunteers who staff them. There is plenty of room for improvement, of course. For example, the BLP policy as a whole is solid, but the committee should encourage the community to address areas where it can improved, such as in issues with transgendered people. Because of the structure of Wikipedia, the committee cannot, as you said, "make policy out of whole cloth", so there is a limit to how much they can address these issues, however.

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?
In regards to the last matter, I'm reluctant to comment on it in detail since the ticket mentioned is in an OTRS queue I do not have access to. However, judging by the discussion on Jimbo's talk page it appears to be a simple but unfortunate oversight and not part of a particular pattern. The other two cases, however, do appear to be part of a pattern. Whether that is due to unconscious systemic bias, oversight, or coincidence, it is a perception that needs to be confronted by the committee. Above I've written more extensively about the failure to take a harder line against transphobic comments in the Manning case. In Sexology, it appears the committee was more concerned about potentially running off an expert than about the behavior of that expert and whether or not it fit within established Wikipedia norms. I don't know enough about the field to make a judgment like calling him a fringe expert, but I am troubled that the committee would value offsite expertise so much they would downplay his editing the other party's Wikipedia article to insert negative information.

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.)?
When the pattern of behavior of a troublesome or combative editor is not limited to interactions with another specific editor or a specific set of articles.
wnumerous 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)
The message we should be sending is that the creation of content is not the only metric that we use for determining appropriate behavior on Wikipedia, and that how editors interact on a collaborative project is as important as their willingness to assist the project.
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...?)
I don't believe the legal framework should be applied to ArbCom or Wikipedia, but I think a full site ban would also be equivalent to a restraining order.
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?
I have opinions on this matter, but I don't think this is the proper forum to elaborate on them. Wikipedia is used too often as a political battleground and political opinions often have a negative influence on how we interact with other editors and how we view Wikipedia policies and editing decisions. We should strive to keep politics out of Wikipedia policy-making, and especially the Arbitration Committee, as much as possible.
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?
In principle, I agree, but I think too often we stress the first question and ignore the second. Too often I've see egregious conduct just waved away with a vague reference to some contributions. To restore the balance, I would start asking the second question first.
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.
My read name is not secret, I just prefer to keep it offsite. On site, I have disclosed my nationality, ethnicity, profession, the broad strokes of my educational background, and alma mater. I feel this is enough information to satisfy the need for transparency and to balance it with the need for privacy. Post-Essjay, I understand the desire in the community for transparency and accountability when it comes to real world credentials, but we should remember that on Wikipedia editors should primarily be judged by their performance and actions on Wikipedia.

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.
I regret not having any featured or good articles to my credit. During my early years on Wikipedia I gave little thought to such processes, despite having plenty of opportunities to do so, as I wrote or rewrote a number of long articles from scratch. (Lee Harvey Oswald and John Byrne (comics) come to mind, though I make no claim for the current state of those articles as I haven't substantially worked on them in a while, but the basic frameworks of my contributions appear to remain.) As my contribution style evolved, I found I became more interested in filling in the gaps in Wikipedia coverage and writing articles about uncovered areas than improving the quality of the articles that existed. My most recent effort at article quality improvement was Zamorano Eighty, which I created and submitted for Peer Review with an eye towards Featured List status, but so far I've been stymied by the lack of available substantial sources to improve the article in the ways suggested by the peer reviewers.

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?
No need to apologize, this is an excellent question. Unfortunately, this is an area where I can bring a wealth of experience to the committee. Over my years on Wikipedia, I have been the target of years worth of vandalism, libel, outing, cyberstalking, a blackmail attempt, and even a death threat. I consider myself lucky that these actions have translated into few real world consequences. Some of this is attributable to past editing in controversial areas like US politics and conspiracy theories. Apparently, I'm the guy who keeps you from reading about The Truth about the Kennedy assassination on Wikipedia, and I've been denounced on conspiracy message boards and radio shows. And some of it is just from sheer bad luck, being in the wrong place at the wrong time. So were I to serve on the committee, I imagine nothing much would change in this respect. With experience, I've found it surprisingly easy to ignore most of this, which it is once you realize that someone's emotional issues are the real cause of their outlandish behavior and not anything you did or said. The most frustrating, for me, are the comments that pretend to sound reasonable but are full of deliberate inaccuracies and fabricated allegations. I have to fight the compulsion to respond to these point by point. But you aren't going to sway people like this, they will just fabricate more facts and allegations. The best response is to lay out your case in comprehensive way and leave it at that. Reasonable people will easily see through the nonsense on their own.

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?
I'm going to be bold and provide one combined answer to all of these questions. It is a serious problem. It is tempting to be complacent because a lot of the problem stems from the fact that we are indeed a maturing project, but not precisely in the way it is framed by your question. Our work is not done, it is changing. A lot of the low hanging fruit has already been picked, in that a new editor can't dash off an article about a common subject that they just read about like they could in 2006. That means that we have to find new ways of attracting editors. And I don't think the dropping rate of retention is solely attributable to this transformation. We have wide-ranging problems like incivility and the gender gap which I think have strong implications for our ability to attract and maintain new editors. And make no mistake, we need these new editors to maintain and update the articles that have already been written, write new ones about emerging and neglected topics, and address the unforeseen challenges of the future as our project changes. There's a lot that we can do and we have already done. What the community can do is to not remain complacent on this issue. Elements of the community and the Foundation are participating in new initiatives to address the gender gap, and Visual Editor may prove to be one of the most important things the Foundation has done to bring new editors into the fold. The Arbitration Committee can assist by insuring that the project takes a strong stand against behavior that inhibits attracting new editors, like incivility or transphobia.
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the EnWP Community?
see above
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the Foundation?
see above
Lastly, what steps, if any, could be taken by ArbCom?
see above

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?
Wikipediocracy can be a valuable source for independent, objective criticism, or it can be a soapbox for disgruntled malcontents to nurse and reinforce each others grudges against while cheering on every bit of perceived bad news about Wikipedia as "evidence" that they were right all along. It cannot be both. But whatever it chooses to be, there is nothing Wikipedia can or should do about it. It exists and is a fact of the world independent of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's only involvement should be if Wikipedians use Wikipediocracy as a forum for serious negative actions directed at other Wikipedians, such as outing and doxing, blackmail, etc.

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

Question from DHeyward

Your userpage espouses a political userbox and is generally consistent with your edits to political topics outside simple vandalism reversion. How do you discern NPOV from your own lens when editing such articles with political overtones such as political commentators like Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann or politicians in general?
Everyone comes to Wikipedia with their own beliefs and we all should strive to put them aside and work towards NPOV, and I feel that I've been quite successful in doing just that. Much has been written about NPOV, so it would be foolish to attempt to recapitulate it all here, but in part it means being guided by reliable sources instead of your own beliefs and presenting that information in an even-handed and appropriately worded manner. This is especially important in political articles, where editors find it difficult to put aside their own biases and beliefs and project political biases and motivations onto other editors who disagree with them during editing disputes. I've also been a strong advocate of the idea that Wikipedia readers deserve the know the full picture regarding political figures, including negative aspects where appropriate as per WP:RS, NPOV, undue weight, etc. This has left me open to accusations from editors who are unable to distinguish between documenting these issues and advocacy. I've done relatively little editing of articles related to politics in recent years because I find the rampant incivility and abandonment of good faith distasteful, and this negativity is so ingrained it political editing that even when editors are trying to be reasonable and civil, they still approach this issue from this core of negativity and an absence of good faith. The recent Tea Party arbitration case is evidence that these behaviors are largely unchecked on political articles. Were I to serve on the committee I would be a strong advocate for restoring civility and appropriate behavior on political articles.

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: [1].
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

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? Would you expect to see more or less ArbCom activity in the next 12 months? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]