Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Joe Roe/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

---

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Thanks for volunteering! Same question as for the others: Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here?

   Most of it. I agree that the intent behind a message is important, and that an officious templated warning can be just as uncivil as profanity (whether the recipient is a "regular" or not). Sleep on it before you escalate the drama is also such excellent advice that it ought to be promoted to a policy. On the broader issue I also agree that that case was not ready for ARBCOM. With that said, I'm not comfortable with the defence of "fuck off" as language that is ordinarily acceptable here. OR is right that civility implicitly invokes "white-collar office politesse", but what other register would she suggest? Wikipedia inherited a blunt, confrontational style of communication from the early internet culture it sprang from, which may be fine for those of us accustomed to it, but we have empirical evidence that it alienates many potential editors, especially women. See also my answers to David Tornheim's questions below. Joe Roe (mobile) (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Carrite

2. Hello, and thank you for running for ArbCom. There are a number of off-wiki venues for criticism of Wikipedia content, policy, processes, and participants. Such sites include Wikipediocracy, Genderdesk, Wikipedia Sucks!, Wikipedia Review (mark 2), and Reddit. Do you read content or participate by writing at any of these venues? If so, which? Do you feel that such sites have positive value in identifying and correcting such problems and abuses that emerge at Wikipedia or do you feel that such sites are wholly negative in essence, without redeeming value? Carrite (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   I've only heard of a couple and haven't visited any of them, so I'm afraid I can't give you a proper answer to this. In principle I don't see why external criticism and commentary on Wikipedia shouldn't be welcomed. – Joe (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

2. The Wikimedia foundation began issuing site bans (“SanFranBans”) of Wikipedians deemed unacceptable for participation several years ago, beginning by making a case for such exclusions on child protection grounds, but gradually disposing of inconvenient individuals for a range of other transparently obvious reasons. These exclusions are made by one or a very few individuals with no oversight and no process for appeal. Do you feel that this growing trend of WMF permanently banning individuals from participation on all Wikimedia projects is problematic, or is this intervention beneficial? Do you feel that each and every ban so far implemented by San Francisco has been justified? Do you feel that San Francisco banning individuals for reasons beyond child protection or potential physical violence is an intervention into Arbcom's purview as Wikipedia's discipline committee? Carrite (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   I wasn't familiar with these global bans before, but having spent some time researching them, it doesn't seem like your description is entirely accurate. According to meta:WMF Global Ban Policy, meta:WMF Global Ban Policy/procedure, and meta:Office actions/procedures, several senior WMF personnel are involved involved in approving a ban, including the General Counsel and Executive Director. The first page also lists 8 bans in 2015, 6 in 2016, 7 in 2017 and 9 in 2018 – so they aren't really a "growing trend". It's impossible for me to say whether I agree with all of them because most are based on non-public information. They are explicitly limited in scope to issues that have exhausted community venues and/or involve serious legal issues. It seems entirely sensible that there is a way for the WMF to deal with these rare situations, which volunteers, even ARBCOM, would be ill-equipped for. – Joe (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Peacemaker67

2. Given the lack of attempts at dispute resolution or dramaboard action that preceded it, what are your thoughts on the decision of ArbCom to take on the German War Effort case this last year?

   As I mentioned in my statement, I think there's a tendency to view the drama boards (especially ANI) as the forum for dispute resolution when in fact a great deal takes place in more ad hoc venues. In the case of German war effort, there were extensive attempts to reach a consensus on article, user and WikiProject talk pages before it was taken to ARBCOM. I don't think it's particularly important whether the discussions happened there or in a formal DR venue, as long as there were genuine attempts to reach a resolution by a broad base of editors. On a broader note, I think German war effort is an excellent example of the kind of case where ARBCOM can be most valuable: if elected, I would be strongly in favour of taking cases that address intractable and long-term POV pushing in our coverage of certain areas (because I think many more are out there). – Joe (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from power~enwiki

2. Wikipedia is, arguably, the first rough draft of history, specifically regarding 21st-century history. Archaeology is, largely, the study of ancient history. Do you feel your experience as an archaeologist would benefit the Arbitration Committee? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

   That's an interesting question. I've often thought about the marvellous archive that wiki software provides for any future historians writing the history of our movement (or the history of our time through Wikipedia.) I don't think that archaeology specifically has any relevant experience for ARBCOM, except maybe that I know when to stop digging! Being a junior academic is perhaps more relevant: I'm trained to critically and dispassionately assess arguments; teaching teaches you to communicate clearly and concisely; and I've sat on institutional committees before. Joe Roe (mobile) (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from David Tornheim

2. I noticed that you did not participate in this RfC asking 'Should the "repetitive usage" of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable"?’  Were you aware of this RfC with hundreds of respondents? If so, is there a reason why you did not weigh in?

   Thanks for the questions. I do remember seeing that discussion, but don't recall specifically why I didn't comment. I see that it was added to WP:CENT (where I probably saw it) on 27 October, and I've been had very little time or access to Wikipedia in the last month. If I saw it and it already had hundreds of respondents, I probably also wouldn't have thought there was anything substantive I could add. Joe Roe (mobile) (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

4. If you had weighed in, what would your answer have been?

   I would agree that telling another editor to "fuck off" is not civil in almost all contexts, but probably question the need for specific guidelines on the issue, in light of WP:CIVIL and WP:CREEP. If at all possible we should fight incivility with civility; not sanctions. Joe Roe (mobile) (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

6. Is it okay to say 'fuck off' in anger to other editors?

   Absolutely not. Joe Roe (mobile) (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

8. Is it okay to say 'fuck off’ to another editor in a dispute over content or when one believes the other editor to be breaking Wikipedia rules?

   Ditto. Joe Roe (mobile) (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

10. What is your opinion about use of ad hominems?

    They're uncivil and logical fallacies both, and therefore have no place in discussions on Wikipedia. With that said, everybody gets het up about discussions here sometimes, so I don't think we should come down like a tonne of bricks on small slips. Joe Roe (mobile) (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

12. Is it acceptable to use pejorative labels of other editors such as climate-change-denier, anti-vaxxer, flat-earther, etc., (especially without diffs) to discredit them in a dispute that has nothing to do with the topic under consideration?

    I think this is covered by last answer because these are all ad hominems. If I may take the opportunity to address what I think is the thrust of your questions: I would definitely like to see the culture here become more welcoming and collegial. I don't think that the best way to achieve this is to create more "rules". I think it's for those of us that think that way to put it into practice (which I try to do) and to use our existing dispute resolution/sanctions systems to target persistent unacceptable behaviour by prominent editors. Joe Roe (mobile) (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

14. According to our article, Encyclopædia Britannica has a "critical reputation for general excellence". (See reputation). If so, can you explain why Britannica's article on acupuncture bears almost no resemblance to our article on acupuncture? Britannica suggests that it is useful alleviating pain. Our article casts a negative cloud, describing it as a pseudoscience, leaving the impression there is little reason to believe it is effective for treating even pain.

    I'm afraid I can't. I've never edited acupuncture, have no insight into the workings of the venerable EB, and have no expertise in medicine. – Joe (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

16. The U.S. National Institute of Health explains Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Health here. Is it appropriate for our articles to describe these treatments in WP:Wikivoice as pseudoscience? Is it appropriate to use Stephen Barrett's work and publication in Quackwatch as a primary source to discredit such treatments rather than publication in highly respected peer-reviewed medical journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine?

    As above. I've had nothing to do with these articles and am not familiar with the sources. – Joe (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

18. Consider a controversial topic where two polarized groups of editors have strongly differing opinions on content, and one group regularly takes members of the other group to WP:AN/I to have them topic banned or indefinitely blocked—-not because of behavior that actually violates policy—-but primarily because the accusing group prefers not to deal with the "disruption" of editors who disagree with them on content. If members of the accusing group have sufficient control and influence at AN/I (from AN/I regulars, including both commentators and sympathetic admins), then that group can systematically eliminate all editors of the opposing group who disagree with them.

    Do you believe this is going on? If so, does it serve our core policy of WP:NPOV that only editors from one side of a controversy are permitted to edit the topic? If it is going on, and the dispute comes to ArbCom, how would you handle it—-especially if ArbCom does not address content?

20. It is often asserted that ArbCom cannot rule on content. I assume that means it will not decide specifically what should be in an article.  But what if part of a dispute has to do with allegations that an editor(s) is lying about content in a source(s), using contradictory or double-standards as to what qualifies as WP:RS in the topic area,  preferring inferior sources over superior sources, preferring outdated sources to current sources, dismissing high quality sources that articulate views the editor(s) does not want in the article, and other behavior that create bias in an article in violation of WP:NPOV.  Do you believe ArbCom could handle such an issue? How about this case?  Would you as an Arb be willing to look at a source’s content to verify whether an editor was or was not lying or misrepresenting the source's content? In sum, would you be willing to see if there are some serious sourcing issues?

Questions from Collect

2. Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?

   Not at all. The first and most important phase of an arbitration case is to consider the evidence and establish findings of fact. Only then can a decision on whether sanctions are needed be made. – Joe (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

4. If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits?

   If an arbitrator has had substantial disputes with an editor in the past they can't be impartial about that editor and should recuse themselves from cases involving them. – Joe (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

6. Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually far from home for an extended period, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow fully reasoned responses to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"?

   Your question(s) are written in such a way that there's only one possible answer, though of course what constitutes e.g. an "extremely short" deadline depends on the context, and must be balanced against the need to keep cases to a reasonable schedule. Your last two questions seem to address very particular circumstances. If you would like me to comment on a specific case, please let me know and I will do my best. – Joe (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Oshwah

2. Other than having the adequate technical skills and knowledge required, and having the level of experience consistent with being granted the role(s), what other specific areas, aspects, skills, and/or traits would you look for and personally want to see in a candidate who is applying to be appointed as a CheckUser or Oversighter? What specific areas (outside of knowledge and skill, experience) in an otherwise-good candidate would cause you to halt, make a complete about-face, and oppose their candidacy for Checkuser or Oversighter if you were to see or find it?

   Since I don't have checkuser or oversight rights myself, this is an area where I'd defer to more experienced arbitrators initially. But based on my outsiders' experience with SPI and oversight, what is unique about these roles is that they make decisions based largely on their own judgement, using information that is openly available. I therefore think it's important that checkusers/oversighters can be relied upon to apply policy fairly and flexibly. A tendency to stick rigidly to the "letter of the law" and not give due consideration to context would make me question a candidate's suitability. – Joe (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Feminist

2. How can Wikipedia better communicate its processes to outsiders?

   I wish I knew! This is the question that got me interested in new user/new page maintenance work and ultimately led me to adminship. I often return to our choice of language, which tends to assume near-native English and some higher education. For example, the text at the top of this edit box tells me that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" rather than, say, "You must cite your sources." Some more recent wikis, like Genius, are able to communicate similar principles to Wikipedia's using more concise and accessible language. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. feminist (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Drmies

2. Hey Joe--thanks for throwing your name in. You've been an admin for a year or so, you said. I don't know if you have you done a lot of blocking, been forced to use rev/delete, etc., but have you run into situations where you felt things were so bad that an administrator alone, or even in a pack, couldn't handle it? What do you think the role or function of ArbCom can be in relation to the WMF in battling serial harassment/vandalism and harassment? (It's a question that can go many places, and I'm sure there's lots of right answers, but I'm interested in your experiences and your thoughts.)

   Thank you. What immediately comes to mind is paid editing cases. I frequently come across these during new page review and find them difficult to deal with even with the admin tools. One factor is the time it takes to investigate even one paid editor, but also policy in this area is weak and ties your hands in all but the most blatantly abusive cases. Currently cleaning up after paid/COI editing is largely left to WP:COIN and the few people who do the thankless job of patrolling it. I agree with others that ArbCom, with more investigatory tools at its disposable and the ability to impose more effective sanctions, is better placed to address serious COI editing problems.
   Harassment is not something I've had to deal with on Wikipedia to date, although I understand that this is a large part of ArbCom's job. I think it is important that we as a community do everything we can to put a stop to it, rather than leaving it solely to WMF, and given that private information is likely to be involved ArbCom is the only community body that can do that effectively. In some cases it may be that only the WMF has the means to respond effectively, but trying to address it at the community level at least sends the message that harassment has no place in enwiki culture. – Joe (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Rschen7754

2. I randomly stumbled on this comment that you made to a fellow administrator. Regardless of how you feel about this administrator, do you believe this would be an appropriate comment to make publicly as an arbitrator? --Rschen7754 05:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

   For context, I was one of the "nonspecific editors" that Hardy had been repeatedly accusing of misconduct across multiple boards (alluding to us as "the five" etc., never by name). This borderline-harassing behaviour had been going on for days at that point and was clearly not going to have any repercussions, so I think my snarky response there was understandable. It was not a productive comment to make, however, and I am not proud of it. Since becoming an admin I have tried to hold myself to a higher standard of conduct and if elected an arbitrator I would endeavour to do so even more. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Cinderella157

2. Arb policy makes a requirement for transparency and Arb cases make an explicit statement of intent to reach a "fair" decision.
   1. What are, in your opinion, the "principles and spirit" (per WP:5P5) that underpin the policy and statement?
   2. The policy in particular, requires "detailed rationales for decisions related to cases". Please comment on this duty as it might apply to you (say, as a drafting arbitrator) and the committee as a whole, in respect to how this duty is discharged (noting the underlying principles), particularly where the evidence presented might be in conflict.
   3. Do you consider that this duty has been complied with and what might you do to improve compliance?

   Openness is a foundational principle of Wikipedia and indeed the wiki movement as a whole. All of our processes should be as transparent as possible. I would say the directive to give detailed rationales is fairly self-explanatory: anybody reading the decision should be able to understand (if not agree with) how a decision follows from the cited principles and findings of fact. As a drafting arbitrator, it would be my job to articulate this clearly, summarising the consensus of other arbs. I have not noticed a failure to comply with this requirement in the past; in fact I've often thought that arbitration decisions are remarkably clear documents given the complicated subject matter. – Joe (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

4. There is something of a theme in questions regarding civility (and personal attacks). My question pertains to the conduct of cases (starting at the request phase) and not to cases about civility and personal attacks. I note that an ArbCom case is a place to address grievances and it is appropriate to make reasonable allegations in "good faith" supported by links. WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL is relevant.
   1. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements in a case that contained derogatory gender-related comments by way of commentary?
   2. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements/submissions (such as evidence) in a case that were a significant misrepresentation of context? While this is uncivil, in such a context, I believe that it might rise to the level of a personal attack by virtue of the potential consequences if the statement/submission is taken at face value.
   3. While Arbs are not infallible, the community endowers Arbs with significant power and trust, and with virtually no recourse. What would be your expectations and your actions where an Arb has made an uncivil comment (rising to the level of a personal attack) openly in the course of a case?

   I agree that in both your first two cases such conduct would be uncivil and unacceptable. However, I don't believe ArbCom has the remit to act in such a circumstance, just because the comments in question were made as part of an arbitration case. They would have to be handled by normal community procedures, and hopefully the arbitration clerks would take the lead on this. (If the case itself was about civility and it was one of the involved parties acting uncivilly, that would be another matter, but you specifically excluded this scenario in your question.) – Joe (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

6. In my assessment of Civil POV pushing: this behaviour is not readily apparent to those not affected; it requires a "body" of evidence over an extended period to establish a case; and, ArbCom has a poor record in dealing with it – perhaps, because of the dealing with the amount of evidence to sift through or because restrictions on the size of submissions. Please comment, with any insights or solutions you might offer. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk)

   I agree. I've already noted above that I would like to see ArbCom taking on more cases of this nature. It might mean some very large and complicated cases, yes, but it's an area where the committee can make a big impact. – Joe (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Guerillero

Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. I am rehashing most of my 2015 questions because I don't think that these issues have been resolved over the past three years. Enjoy!

Current Disputes and Cases

2. What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?

   I'm a firm believer that blocks should be preventative only, so for me the standard is the minimum sanction that is likely to be effective at ending the disruption. – Joe (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Nearly every case involves violations of the civility policy in some way, shape, or form. At one time, a remedy called a "Civility Parole" existed but it fell out of vogue. Today, the only tools in the current Arbitrator's toolboxes to deal with civility issues are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. What new and creative ways would you bring to the table to solve this problem?

   I think the community (not just ArbCom) has narrowed in on bans over time because they are effective at stopping many types of disruption and are easy to administer. The problem with unusual or bespoke sanctions is that they will take ongoing volunteer effort to enforce, although of course topic bans do leave some scope for creativity. A sanction is not worth it if enforcing it is more disruptive than the cause. Technical solutions seem a more promising avenue. For example, the ongoing trends towards creating more 'granular' advanced permissions (e.g. new page reviewer, interface editor), gives us the option of excluding editors from those permissions if they use them disruptively. The WMF's anti-harassment project has also come up with some promising ideas and I think it would be a good idea for the committee to be in contact with them, if they aren't already. – Joe (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

6. Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?

   Yes. As a new admin, it's been frustrating to see some long-serving admins behave in ways that nobody who was still contemplating an RfA would dream of, which I think is a symptom of this problem. If elected I would definitely advocate that, unless the issue is tool misuse, whether or not an editor has admin rights should be completely ignored when deciding sanctions. – Joe (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

8. Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?

   They sometimes read as a bit of a cop-out, but we are a community and reputation matters. I think the vast majority of editors would be shocked into re-evaluating their behaviour after an admonishment from ArbCom, which is sometimes all that's needed. – Joe (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Insider Baseball

2. Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?

Question from Atsme

2. Do you have the time and patience necessary to devote to this highly taxing responsibility, and by that I mean not judging an editor based on preconceived notions without careful examination of the case or simply agreeing with aspersions cast by opposing editors you may know and trust without personally investigating the diffs in the context the challenged editor intended, or waiting until other arbs have posted their conclusions and simply agreeing in an effort to avoid making waves? My primary concern is that some arbs are accepting the position when it’s quite obvious they neither have the time nor the patience required to actually read the diffs provided as evidence to make sure they were presented in the context originally intended by the challenged editor.

   I think so, yes. I understand that arb cases can be extremely stressful experiences for involved parties, and for contributors who are highly invested in the project, can have serious consequences: the least we can do is carefully read all the evidence presented, including all diffs, before taking a position. If I felt I temporarily didn't have the time to do that for a given case, I'd recuse myself from it. – Joe (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Are you willing to recuse yourself from an arb case involving an editor (either filer or filed against) with whom you have adamantly opposed in a prior argument or whose ideology you view unfavorably?

   If I were "adamantly opposed": it very much depends. I've adamantly but cordially disagreed with many editors in content or policy discussions and still have nothing but respect for them. I don't view that kind of "opposition" as grounds to recuse. But if I had been involved in a protracted dispute, especially one about conduct rather than content/policy, I would recuse. In borderline cases I'd take into account the opinion of the other party: if the editor in question reasonably asked me to recuse myself based on our prior interactions I would probably do so, even if I didn't agree.
   If I viewed their ideology unfavourably: I don't think recusing here would be a sustainable position to take. Otherwise we'd be giving Nazis carte blanche, because no arbs look upon them favourably. Many arb cases involve editors with fringe views, but ultimately the committee is supposed to be concerned with conduct not ideology, so it shouldn't be an issue. – Joe (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Amanda

2. If there was a block appeal to ArbCom by email for an indefinitely blocked user for spamming or BLP violations, and you were the one to reply to the user, how would you handle it? Would you discuss the block on the list first?

   Sorry it's taken so long to get to your questions, Amanda. ArbCom's remit only includes unblocks related to arbitration enforcement, checkuser, oversight, or involving nonpublic information. At first glance, this does not seem to fall into any of those categories. I'd check on-wiki to see if there were any complicating factors, at which point I might confer with other arbitrators, otherwise I would feel comfortable simply replying and directing the user to WP:UNBLOCK. – Joe (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Can you provide one diff of a well reasoned argument where you disagreed with the majority and took an unpopular view? The more recent, the more unpopular, the better.

   This isn't an uncommon situation for me. For instance, I've consistently been against draftification by new page patrollers and consistently lost that argument. Here's one discussion on that. – Joe (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

6. Are you going to read each and every ArbCom email that comes across your desk?

   My first instinct is to answer "yes" but, mindful of your warning below, I don't actually know what the expectations are for email on ArbCom, e.g. whether there are routine emails to the list that are considered optional to read. – Joe (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

8. Admin socking is a rare area ArbCom has the remit to deal with. If your brought a case of admin socking, are you willing to go through the investigatory process and potentially vote to desysop an admin? Especially if your met with silence (or a lack of a defense) from the admin?

   Absolutely. I suppose lack of response from that admin might indicate the account has been compromised or some other mitigating factor is happening, but they should still be desysopped until that can be cleared up. – Joe (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

10. How familiar are you with the privacy policy and access to non-public data policy? What is one part you find interesting about one of them and why?

    I read the access to non-public data policy before nominating myself of course. I've looked at the privacy policy occasionally over the years. I can also recognise your attempt to elicit a longer commentary, but... they're not particularly interesting documents. I don't think I can muster anything. – Joe (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question by K.e.coffman

2. With the rise of far-right and hate groups online, are you concerned that editors espousing such beliefs may try (or are already attempting) to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for propaganda? Why or why not? If yes, what role do you think ArbCom could play in counteracting their influence on Wikipedia? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

   Yes, although I'd perhaps be less worried about explicit attempts to propagandise (which would be clumsy and obvious), and more about how the rightward turn in internet culture will increase the amount of disorganised POV pushing. I'm sure the latter is already happening; ArbCom has already heard cases relating to it, e.g. GamerGate and German war effort. It should continue to do so with gusto, but I think countering the problem as a whole is really a matter for the wider community. – Joe (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from User:Smallbones

2. Could you discuss your general philosophy toward enforcing our rules on undisclosed paid editing? You've said above that our rules on UPE are weak, but the terms of use are quite specific: UPE is prohibited. What level of "proof" is required before you'd ban somebody for paid editing? Do admins need to follow these rules, or should they be held to a higher standard?

   I'm very happy to. Paid editing is something I feel very strongly about and I've been involved in many recent discussions on it. The ToU are indeed clear in prohibiting undisclosed paid editing. But our local COI/paid editing policy is weak and that makes it hard to enforce. The basic catch 22 is that only undisclosed paid editing is prohibited, but it's very hard to prove that an editor is making paid edits unless they disclose. So when you encounter someone making edits that are suspicious, all you can do within policy is ask them whether they're being paid, and if they say yes, they have technically disclosed and a block is no longer justified. I've blocked UPEs before, but only in unusual cases, e.g. where an editor (who had been made familiar with the COI policy) accidentally let slip on another Wikimedia project that they were making paid edits here. Other than that, UPEs are usually blocked for other, related reasons: sockpuppetry, WP:NOTHERE, etc. There have been suggestions to let admins act more freely to block paid editors under a WP:DUCK test, which I support, but I don't think this is currently within policy.
   As for your second question, I think paid editing (disclosed or not) is incompatible with holding any advanced permissions on Wikipedia, adminship certainly included. – Joe (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

4. This summer I sent a private complaint to arbcom about an administrator who had very obviously inserted material from one of his employer's press releases into the article about the company without making a COI or Paid Editing disclosure. The arbcom ruling was that the admin was not paid editor, but had a conflict of interest. He was not required to declare the COI. I was not informed about how the proceedings were being conducted, or who actually voted on the decision, or why the admin was not considered to be a paid editor, or even why he did not have to declare his COI. I was informed in a very short email signed by a single arb when the decision had been made, but there was very little information in the email. My request for clarification didn't result in any clarification. I understand you can't comment on the case itself, but can you comment on how such a case should be conducted?

   Given that the complaint was made in private and possibly involved private information about another editor, I think it was reasonable of the committee to only inform you of the end result. You of course had the option of pursuing the matter further on-wiki, where the process would have been more transparent. – Joe (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Hijiri88

2. What is your opinion on the essay WP:CPUSH, and do you think ArbCom should take special care in handling the kind of cases it is describing in the future?

   I've already commented on this above: I fully agree with WP:CPUSH and think that these kind of cases are important. If elected, I'd certainly try to find ways that the committee can deal with them more effectively. – Joe (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Do you agree with this definition of "hounding", and the additional comment DGG left during ArbCom's !voting on it, particularly as it may relate to concerns over another editor's ability to properly read and interpret or concerns that an editor who has plagiarized a lot of text before may do so again? (Please note that this does not relate especially to my specific ArbCom case, nor to anyone involved in it; I just really like the definition as it is clearer than the one that's currently at WP:HOUND, and DGG's comment especially was something that honestly I would have liked to see enshrined in the final decision, and perhaps in any future statements ArbCom may make on the issue.)

   I agree, it's a good definition. I think you often find that, with the care that goes into drafting them, Arb decisions end up articulating policy better than policy itself. – Joe (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Piotrus

2. Have you read this academic paper on ArbCom? Anything you agree/disagree/find interesting? (Disclaimer: I am the paper's author. I am not looking for pats on the back, but I am genuinely curious if you heard of it, read it, and what do you think of it; feel free to be critical of it, I am interested in your honest opinion on whether such research is useful, not in having my ego stroked). PS. If you reply here please WP:ECHO me back. TIA.

   @Piotrus: I have now! A very thought-provoking piece of research, thank you for sharing it. The anthropologist in me can't help but feel that it's crying out for some ethnographic follow-up, is that something you've considered? Regarding your main finding, that ArbCom functions as an activity-ocracy, it makes sense. It seems to be an organising principle of Wikipedia as a whole. But what works for the community as a whole, with a pool of thousands of volunteers, might not be ideal for ArbCom, with less than two dozen. There is a discussion to be had perhaps about ensuring that decisions received genuine input from a broad set of arbs, e.g. reforming the drafting arbitrator role, or the quorum rules. Although as I don't know much about the behind-the-scenes processes of the committee, I can't offer much insight myself. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Banedon

2. I see you've said an Arbcom case doesn't have to result in sanctions above. Given that, what is your opinion of this?

   You may have a point that ArbCom are considered more factors than are currently stated in the guide, but I don't think it follows that if someone has "done something wrong" then "sanctions must be applied". Sanctions are remedies that help the community solve problems, not punishments for wrongdoing. – Joe (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Pick any recent case. Was there anything you'd have done differently compared to the current Arbcom? Any motion or finding of fact or whatever you'd have voted against the majority?

   I don't think I could fairly "re-arbitrate" a case like that: I don't have access to the private discussions that the committee had or as much time they did to examine and contemplate all the evidence. However, one case I'm familiar with (because I was tangentially involved in it) where I was disappointed with the committee's decision is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. The slap on the wrist for Hardy was inexplicable given the findings regarding his conduct – I think was a textbook illustration of the Super Mario Problem (see also my answer to Guerillero above). I would have proposed/voted for sanctions (i.e. desysopping). ArbCom's inaction then has paralysed the community in the face of Hardy's continuing disruptive behaviour. – Joe (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

6. There's a new RFAR today. What would your inclinations be (e.g. would you accept/decline, if the evidence is taken at face value, what sanctions [if any] would you apply, etc)? I realize the RFAR is preliminary, so I'm not looking for conclusive decisions, just some idea of how what you think of the dispute.

   I'd be inclined to accept it on the basis that, because it involves private information and off-wiki contact, and because the parties are an administrator and a highly respected editor, it is very unlikely to be effectively resolved by the community. However, I agree with the comments from the committee that there is not actually much substance to the dispute and would support resolving it by motion instead of a full case. – Joe (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from AugusteBlanqui

2. Do you accept that Wikipedia suffers from the Iron Law of Oligarchy? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

   Yes in the sense that, to the extent that we have 'political' (decision-making) structures, they are dominated by a small minority of editors. But I'd unpick several aspects of the question. For a start, the comparison between Wikipedia and a political body is tempting but faulty. We're not a political experiment, we're a collaborative writing project, and the organisation that accompanies that project is minimal and irrelevant to most of what we do. Second, classically, the iron law of oligarchy applies to democratic organisations that degrade into oligarchies, but again Wikipedia was never supposed to be a democracy. The current situation, a kind of activity-ocracy where decisions are made by a consensus of whoever fancies participating, is exactly how the project was designed to run. Finally, do we "suffer" from oligarchy? I don't think so. Although I'd always be in favour of greater participation, the status quo is functional, and will continue to do so as long as joining the 'oligarchy' of editors who involve themselves in policy discussions remains open and relatively easy. The only major change I would like to see is for that inner circle to become accessible to a greater and more diverse pool of editors, which I've touched on in several questions above, in terms of how our norms of communication can be exclusionary. – Joe (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Tamsier

2. Hi Joe Roe, thanks for volunteering and good luck. This is a two part question I hope you don't mind. You were only given the Admin tool last year. I've never been an admin but can appreciate that it takes a hell of a lot of time to get used to all the tools and develop experience especially if you are new to the role. One year is extremely short to be regarded as an experienced admin. Therefore, don't you feel that adding arbcom to the list might be too much for you or perhaps too soon? Or do you feel that arbcom is just another goal you would like to tick off a list? My next question is, if this nomination is successful, how would you handle a case brought against an editor who is a friend of yours or friendly with you, or someone whom you have great respect for or formed Wiki relationship with over the years? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamsier (talk • contribs)

   Thank you. I can appreciate that my short tenure as an admin is a cause for concern. "I'm not experienced enough" was my first reaction upon been approached to run, but I was persuaded by the idea that temperament and skills are more important than formal experience. ArbCom's core responsibilities are dispute resolution and trusted communication – neither of these are restricted to admins. In fact, one could be an administrator for years and never do them. I've never been a hat-collector. I was an editor for over a decade before I asked for the tools, and the only other advanced right I've held is new page patroller, because I needed it to continue work I'd already been doing. I'm running for the committee because it's interesting work that makes a valuable contribution to a project I believe in. If admin and/or previous committee experience is your main criteria, there is a whole list of better candidates in this election. What I would say is that I have enough experience and that I'm one of only a few candidates that would bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the committee. Along those lines, my first vote in the election is going to go to Robert McClenon, who is not an admin at all, but who I know will be an ideal arbitrator.
   There's a tricky line to be drawn there. There are a few editors who I've worked so closely with that I would definitely recuse from a case involving them. But there's a much larger group of editors I've had occasional collegial interactions with over the years and/or admired from afar. I think it would be too much to exclude myself from hearing cases about those people. For one, it would affect a hell of a lot of cases. Also, being mildly predisposed to looking favourably on someone is always a good idea and not something I would consider as compromising my impartiality as an arbitrator. – Joe (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamsier (talk • contribs)

Question(s) from Nosebagbear

2. While you have confirmed your primary block/ban judgement is based on what is needed for prevention, obviously everyone has different viewpoints on what is (or should be tried) as necessary. For any given severity of offence, where would you say you are on a 1-5 scale of leniency to severity (1=sharp wagging of finger for everything, 5=hang 'em by their eyeballs for swearing)? Having decided this, where would you say you stand in comparison to other arbitrator candidates in terms of your sanction viewpoint?

   I really can't accept the premise of the question. There aren't offences, leniency/severity, or punishments. There's only our job of writing an encyclopaedia and preventing things that get in the way of that. If pushed to make a comparison, I'd say I have less patience than some for warnings beyond the first and for e.g. timed blocks. I'd rather block indefinitely and put the onus on the blocked user to convince us they will stop being disruptive. The reason being that the risk of losing one editor to a harsh sanction is almost always outweighed by the ongoing cost of everyone else putting up with long-term disruption. – Joe (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from User:BU Rob13

2. In the past, the Arbitration Committee's role in dispute resolution had been described as "break[ing] the back[s]" of disputes the community is unable to resolve. Sometimes, this involved taking actions unpopular with the community or actions that were criticized as "draconian". More recently, I would say the Committee has become more hesitant to act unless their actions would have widespread support in the community, especially when those actions affect popular editors (or, less charitably, unblockables). At the center of this is a concern that taking decisive action on a dispute could lead to consequences, but in my experience, the default action of doing nothing often carries consequences as well. Further, doing nothing or taking only minor actions that do not resolve the underlying dispute often narrows the workable options available to the Committee, turning difficult-to-solve disputes into nearly unsolvable disputes. Could you comment on these two general schools of thought and what your approach to arbitration would be? More directly, do you think it is sometimes necessary to take unpopular or draconian actions to "break the back" of a dispute, or should such actions always be avoided?

   I tend to agree. The committee is supposed to handle cases "the community has been unable to resolve," so almost by definition they cannot be addressed with measures that are popular with the community. Inaction is risky because giving "unblockables" a slap on the wrist serves only to make them more unblockable: the community will think they've exhausted all options. As I tried to explain in my statement, I think that to function correctly ArbCom needs to embrace it's role as the-one-exception-to-consensus and act decisively when cases are severe enough to warrant its attention. Otherwise, why have a body that is formally separate from "the community"? – Joe (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from User:Grillofrances

2. What do you think about reverting an edition which provides true information, 100% of the info is based on reliable sources, it's objective, grammatically correct, not offending anybody and useful for the article but it's reverted because a new editor just claims this info is redundant?

   Redundancy is a valid reason to object to an addition to an article. As always, I think the best way to respond to a revert is to make an honest attempt to understand the other editor's rationale and then engage them in a discussion to find a consensus. The fact that the reverter is a new editor is neither here nor there. – Joe (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from User:Ryk72

Discretionary sanctions (DS) now cover more than 30 topic areas (per WP:DSTOPICS).

2. In determining the "effectiveness" of DS, what factors should be taken into account?

   Since discretionary sanctions are standardised and their application left to individual administrators, ArbCom's main role in determining their effectiveness is defining the "area of conflict" they apply to. The committee should try to demarcate these clearly, so administrators and editors can easily understand what is and isn't covered; and narrowly, so the sanctions don't unintentionally spill out into tangentially related areas.

4. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?

   Fringe beliefs and ethno-political conflicts are good targets for DS. Our normal dispute resolution procedures tend to flounder against editors with entrenched POVs, which these topics tend to attract. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

6. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS not been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?

   A pitfall with DS is applying them in areas where, in actuality, the dispute is limited to a few individuals, in which case they'll end up being lame ducks. Although it's an old case and now superseded, I thought Sexology was one instance of this. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

8. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS been effective in addressing conduct or behavioural issues, but otherwise detrimental to the encyclopedia? If any, in what ways & why?

   I don't think DS are detrimental to the encyclopaedia. They're extreme measures by wiki standards, but if you take a step back the powers they give to admins is still actually quite limited (in line with a lot of newcomers assume Wikipedia "moderators" have anyway) and as always are subject to community oversight. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

10. Other than DS, what measures could ArbCom take in addressing conduct issues? Which, if any, of these alternatives should ArbCom take?

    ArbCom can, and regularly does, apply a whole range of sanctions: bans, topic bans, interaction bans, reprimands, the list goes on. DS are far from the main tool in its kit. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

12. Of which of your contributions to Wikipedia are you most proud? Why?

    I'm most proud of my efforts to counter systematic bias in our coverage by writing biographies of women archaeologists and coordinating the women in archaeology task force. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these questions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from User:Ryoung122

2. Greetings Joe Roe, you sound like a potential Wikipedia ArbCom member who can bring an objective, mediated approach to Wikipedia ArbCom disputes. In theory, I do believe that MOST disputes involve extremism from multiple directions and that for Wikipedia to adhere/live up to the ideal of NPOV/NOR, ArbCom decisions (including Discretionary Sanctions) need to be applied in both directions in most cases, and for the more extreme activity. Too often, however, in the past ArbCom decisions have seemed to be particularly POV in one direction, so that the side that is not sanctioned can then run rampant with POV editing (which is not what Wikipedia or ArbCom is supposed to be about). Assuming you are elected/appointed...and there is a possibility that you will be...do you plan to take a fresh look at the way ArbCom has tended to decide ArbCom disputes in the past? Also, I do believe that if there were more emphasis on "mediation" (working it out) and making it clear to both sides, not just one side, that POV-pushing is a violation, then both sides may be more likely to at least work for an acceptable compromise, rather than have the issue battled out. I realize that each dispute is unique and my words here may not apply to all situations.Ryoung122 05:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)