Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates/Robert McClenon/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

---

Question by Red-tailed hawk

2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involvement with respect to administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I see the policy on administrative involvement as reflecting the distinction between content and conduct. An administrator is involved in a controversy if they have been editing the content, in which case they should allow other administrators to deal with any conduct issues. An administrator who is involved with the content of an article may not use administrator tools to "win" a content dispute. The policy on involvement is explained in considerable detail in the Climate Change statement of principles, and I agree with those statements of principle. In that case, an administrator was admonished and restricted, and I think that ArbCom acted reasonably in that respect. In a predecessor dispute to Climate Change, an administrator was desysopped (had their administrator status revoked), largely for using administrative tools to win content disputes. In the Manning naming dispute, an administrator protected the name of the article after moving/renaming it, thus (mis)using an administrator tool in a content dispute. The administrator should have been either desysopped or admonished and restricted, and was admonished and restricted. The Athaenara case involves a somewhat different sort of involvement, because the involvement was in an RFA rather than about article content. I agree that the administrator/functionary who was sanctioned was wrong to use a functionary tool while they were involved.

Questions from InsaneHacker

2. Thank you for standing for election. In your candidate statement, you reference your experience volunteering at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which, like ArbCom, deals with disputes in the broadest sense. However, there are also differences between DRN and ArbCom. The former handles content disputes and is based on voluntary participation by participants, while the latter handles conduct disputes in situations where parties are often involuntarily brought before it.
   What are the skills you've gained from DRN work which you think would be most useful as an arbitrator, and in what areas might you need to have a different mentality as an arbitrator than as a DRN volunteer?

   The skills that are applicable to both DRN and ArbCom include a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the willingness to read through walls of text, the ability to recognize the mix of content and conduct issues in a dispute, and a recognition that the objective is the improvement of the encyclopedia. A content dispute mediator should keep attention focused on the article in question, to try to minimize the impact of any conduct issues. What I will have to do differently as an arbitrator is to focus on the conduct, because ArbCom does not resolve content disputes. The ability to distinguish content issues from conduct issues is important for both content mediators and arbitrators, who address the two types of disputes.

Just adding one question for now. InsaneHacker (💬) 00:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from TheresNoTime

2. How do you foresee the role of the Arbitration Committee changing with regard to the adoption of the Universal Code of Conduct (namely, due to the enforcement guidelines, and the introduction of the global Coordinating Committee)? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I see that your question is about the enforcement provisions and the global U4C. How the U4C affects the ArbCom will depend on whether the U4C interprets the enforcement provisions as they are written, or attempts to increase its power. The enforcement provisions state that the U4C is co-equal to ArbComs, and has final jurisdiction in appeals when there is no other appellate body, or when the appellate body is not functioning. If the U4C respects the self-government of the English Wikipedia and the co-equality of its ArbCom, there will be slight changes to the role of the ArbCom, involving coordination with the U4C in cases of cross-wiki abuse. If the U4C attempts to deal with English Wikipedia conduct issues, ArbCom will also have to advocate for the autonomy of the English Wikipedia, just as it did in the Fram case.

4. Is ANI pronounced A-N-I or Annie? Thank you for standing, and good luck. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   Acronyms should normally be spelled out letter by letter, and this is no exception. It's Ay-En-Eye.

Question from Beyond My Ken

2. Robert, you stood for RfA twice, in 2006, and in 2017. In the first you did not collect a sufficient percentage of votes, and in the second you withdrew your candidacy before it could be closed as failed. As a result, you stand now for a seat on the Arbitration Committee as a non-admin. I believe that -- except for trivial cases way back in Wikipedia's history, when Jimbo Wales appointed arbitrators -- no non-admin has ever been elected to the committee. Since becoming an arbitrator is more difficult than becoming an admin, why did you make the decision to stand for ArbCom knowing that it would be extremely difficult to be elected, and that you are bucking precedent? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   It should be more difficult to be elected as an arbitrator than designated as an administrator, because arbitrators have even greater responsibility. I think that RFA is still too difficult, and that it is at least as difficult to pass RFA as to be elected an arbitrator. ArbCom elections are a more civilized process than RFA.

4. What would you say to members of the community who might feel that you should have stood at RfA and become an admin first, before then attempting to become an arbitrator in some future year? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I will tell them that I respect their opinion, and that we disagree.

Questions from Gerda Arendt

2. Do you believe that we still have infobox wars? If yes, do you have better ideas than the 2013 arb ruling to end them?

   Yes, there are infobox wars. On the one hand, I haven't recently seen any edit-wars over whether an article should have an infobox. On the other hand, two of the most recent disputes that I mediated were about the content of an infobox, so I can guess that there are also edit-wars over whether there should be an infobox. There have been two ArbCom cases about infoboxes, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes in 2013, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions in March 2018. The 2018 case authorized discretionary sanctions including a remedy known as infobox probation. The two remedies for infobox wars should be infobox probation to minimize conduct issues, and Requests for Comments to decide the content issue of whether to have an infobox. Whether to have an infobox is a content decision, and RFC is the usual means of resolving content disputes that are not resolved otherwise.

4. Thank you for your thoughts. You described conflicts well but I wouldn't call them war - actually not even in 2012 when I became aware of them, on Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. I doubt that discretionary sanctions and infobox probation have helped much. RfC has been used, twice this year (that I noticed). In a third case - Cosima Wagner - I debated with myself (on the article talk) if I should start one, but didn't because I am afraid it would be regarded as initiating another battle, and because it would consume the precious time of those who'd comment. - Follow-up question, the same for all who answered the first: Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective?

   I think that RFC was very well summarized by the closer, who went to lengths to explain how the conclusion to have the infobox was supported both by a numerical consensus and by good policy-based arguments. An RFC is a better way to resolve a content dispute than edit-warring.

One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Questions from RoySmith

2. I've noticed that you often comment in the preliminary statements section of case requests. I'll leave you with a somewhat open-ended (multi-part) question: Could you talk a bit about how cases are run? What parts of the current process works well? What parts could be improved? To what extent should the arbs base their decision on their own investigations and deliberations, and how much on the comments posted by the community?

   I will start by saying that, in my opinion, input from the community, other than evidence, is unlikely to be helpful in cases that have been accepted by ArbCom, because ArbCom hears cases that the community is unable to resolve, often because it is divided or polarized. For more or less that reason, I think that the workshop is usually the least useful phase. I do not recall a recent case where it appeared that the workshop was useful in focusing the attention of Arbcom. I will add that my comments to ArbCom on case requests are usually about whether ArbCom should accept the case and what its scope should be, which are questions that the arbitrators sometimes discuss as they are deciding whether to take a case.

Question from DanCherek

2. Thanks for volunteering. In your statement, you write: If that means that ArbCom should reduce its back-office load of invisible appeals, then ArbCom should reduce its back-office load of invisible appeals. On a practical level, what steps would you take (or propose) to make this happen? DanCherek (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I don't have much knowledge of or insight into the invisible back-office work, but I know that Arbitrators have referred to it. At this point I would think that it might be in order to assign one or two Arbitrators, or one or two functionaries, the role of screening the appeals. Many of the unblock requests that come in by email only require a brief review to know either that the editor is still a net negative, or that the editor deserves one more chance.

Question from BilledMammal

2. Would you ever support a principle or finding of fact that is based on the Universal Code of Conduct?

   Yes. Section 3 of the UCoC, on Unacceptable Behavior, is consistent with the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If an editor's behavior violates a subsection of Section 3, the ArbCom should refer to it in the Finding of Fact, and if necessary in a Principle, in sanctioning the editor. Citing the UCoC when applicable may help to ensure that we are left alone by the U4C.

Questions from Kudpung

2. Findings of Fact: Should the Committee have a duty to investigate the veracity of the de facto evidence presented by the complainant(s) and/or uninvolved commenters?

   Yes. The evidence consists largely of diffs, which are self-proving. The arbitrators should spot-check the diffs, and should also verify the claims that have been made, such as that Editor X was edit-warring and that Editor Y made personal attacks. The schedule for an arbitration case has a window between the closing of evidence and the beginning of the proposed decision for review by the arbitrators.

4. In your opinion, are sitting arbitrators exempt from due process if and when they commit an indiscretion that would get a normal editor blocked or sanctioned?

   No. That is, arbitrators are not exempt from due process, or arbitrators are subject to due process. If there is a substantial case of misconduct against an arbitrator, the other arbitrators should consider the evidence, with the accused arbitrator recused. If the ArbCom is unwilling or unable to deal with allegations of misconduct by one of their arbitrators, then the case could go to U4C, and that could start a process of intrusion into the English Wikipedia by the U4C.

Thank you for your answers Robert. To Q1: Perhaps if diffs are cherry picked and taken deliberately out of context the committee would not notice, and if their mind is made up already, they won't bother looking further. To Q2: It depends on the definition of 'substantial'. It could be extremely difficult to make a case against an Arb stick, U4C or no U4C.

Questions from casualdejekyll

2. You've been the sole person handling the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for longer than anyone can remember. What influenced your decision to attempt to switch gears and become an Arbitrator?

   I have from time to time been asked by various editors to consider running for ArbCom. As I have noted above, I think that some of the same skills are applicable to mediating content disputes and resolving conduct disputes. I think that I can provide even more service to Wikipedia as an arbitrator.

4. If you become an Arbitrator, will you continue to participate in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard? (If the answer to the previous question is no, do you have any opinion on how and if Dispute Resolution can/should be continued?)

   If I am elected as an arbitrator, I will continue to assist at DRN, but will avoid taking cases that I think are likely to wind up at WP:ANI, because they could then wind up at arbitration, and I would have to recuse from any dispute that I had tried to mediate. There would need to be a call for volunteers at DRN, and I would be available to mentor new volunteers.

question from lettherebedarklight

2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

   I edit Wikipedia to take part in a very large exercise in codifying human knowledge in a readable form.

Question from Paradise Chronicle

2. You were shortly involved in the notability discussion of Nataša Pirc Musar, an article which was draftified. The diff for the comment does not appear at the talk page history, but your signature is below so I assume its your comment. At the time, Musar was leading in the polls to the Presidential elections in Slovenia and formerly involved in the support of free expression at sure one of the highest state level, if not the highest. She later became Slovenias first female president. Of an average editor I wouldn't question your edit advising not to bring her back to main space, but you aspire to the highest authority for the Wikipedia community. Can you lead to any former example where a leading presidential candidate of the polls was rightfully deemed as not notable?

   I am not entirely sure that I understand what your question is. If you are asking me whether I made a mistake in September, I will say that I did not. I was stating how Wikipedia policy is applied to candidates for office, which is that candidates are very seldom considered to satisfy general notability if they did not already have articles before they came candidates. I advised not moving the article back to article space, based on how policy is normally applied. I see that it was moved to article space, and that she is now President-elect. I stated how Wikipedia policy is applied to candidates for office. I am not sure that there is a question. The diff for my comment is in the history of the article rather than the talk page. The AFC comments, which were on the draft talk page, were moved to the talk page when the draft was accepted.

Question from Anythingyouwant

2. Do you support using juries, consisting of randomly-selected editors, to make many of the banning decisions at Wikipedia? I intensely dislike the current highly-centralized system, which is overworked, underpaid, and often more concerned with ending disputes than with whether that’s done fairly and in keeping with policy. This highly-centralized system is also unduly influenced by a cadre of editors who like to hang out at such proceedings, as well as influenced by hordes of dedicated enemies of the accused who make sure they have lots of input. Also noteworthy is the simple and basic fact that the most effective way for Wikipedia to censor content is to do so indirectly by banning users who favor that content. We can do better than this current system, and a jury of peers would be more deliberative, careful, and even-handed. Right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

   I tried to answer at length, and found that the template for questions and answers does not support formatted answers, so I have put my detailed answer in essay form in User:Robert McClenon/Jury Comments. To summarize, I think that juries are an interesting idea that should be discussed, but are likely not to be feasible because of the difficulty of obtaining if ensuring that the jurors both take the duty seriously and are neutral on highly contentious topics. In particular, I don't think juries are a feasible alternative to Arbitration Enforcement. Also, the policy that Wikipedia is not censored is commonly misunderstood. As I explain in my essay on Yelling Censorship, removal of content for reasons of due weight and WP:BALANCE is not censorship.

4. Have you read both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

   Both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY are cogent essays applying Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but they come to different conclusions. My answer is that "It all depends" on the circumstances, but in general WP:NOTMANDY is correct that balance and due weight say that denials of allegations should be included in an article, with some exceptions. For instance, if the subject of an article was convicted of a felony, it is not necessary to state that they deny the charge, unless the trial and the plea of not guilty is described in detail. Normally the denial should be included. As a side comment, in the case that gave these essays their name, Ms. Rice-Davies was no more reliable than Lord Astor. His denial was self-serving, but her statement that they had an affair was also self-serving. It should be kept in mind, with regard to scandals and allegations, that some people may wish to disclaim involvement and some people may wish to claim involvement. She would say that, wouldn't she?