Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Casliber/Questions

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.

Please note that while candidates are expected to respond to all of the general questions and are encouraged to engage with voters elsewhere on their candidature, they should by no means feel obliged to open their candidate talk page to an extension, as it were, of the individual questioning process. This matter is entirely at the discretion of each candidate.

Questions from Lar

Note to readers
This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2010/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and the year before and modified to fit changes in circumstance.
Notes to respondents
  • In some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so.
  • Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.
  • It is also Not Helpful to answer "yes, yes, no, yes" (because you are expecting people to count on their fingers which answers go with which questions...) go ahead and intersperse your answers. We'll know it was you. No need to sign each part unless you want us to know which parts you answered when.
  • For those of you that ran last year (or the year before, etc.), feel free to cut and paste a previous year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded so watch out for that.
  • Where a question overlaps one of the standard questions I have tried to note that and explain what elaboration is desired.
The questions
  1. Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
    a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
    b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
    c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
    d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - a trial, which ended up being called WP:Pending changes instead. Please comment on the trial results as they specifically relate to the BLP problem. (there is another question about revisions generally) Would you do anything different in the actual implementation?
    e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
    Regarding this, my answers to (a) and (b) remain the same as last time - I believe in trying alot of things to ameliorate the BLP problem but allowing subjects a role in rejigging content rules I think potentially undermines our reliability (slippery slope as per last time - the potential for meddling will only increase as wikipedia's profile consolidates. After looking more into the BLP issue and playing around with flagged revisions a little (and being a long time fan of liberal semiprotection), I reckon semiprotection as we used it was good. I also think Scott Mac's idea of "targetted flagging", that is, identifying a population of low traffic articles (by watchers, links or however we do it) has merit, but I'd semiprotect them rather than place them under Pending Changes. The reason? With semiprotection, the IP asks to edit the article on the talk page and hopefully engages in dialogue with an editor before the edit is made and is hence still around to clarify where the information comes from (i.e. provide a source). Too often in Pending Changes, an IP adds something, then a reviewer comes along and thinks, "heck, is it true??" and has to ferret out sources (as I saw sources seldom cited). For the population of BLPs we are talking about, Reliable Sourcing is often obscure, hence the material might be in print source only. So in summary, my way forward would be liberal semi plus semiprotecting some population of low-traffic articles. Note these actions are prospecitve and don't address the retrospective issues which are the bunch of unreferenced and underrreferenced BLPs, but that's another story...
  2. Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
    a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
    b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
    c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
    Note: this question has some overlap with #5 and #6 in the general set but goes farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
    (a) tricky one. Bit of a grey area and one which ideally could be addressed by the community rather than the committee. The committee should be limited to interpreting policy rather than making it, although whole sets pages are placed under all sorts of sanctions in arb cases. (b) the manner addressing wholesale deletions by admins was (I understand) a difficult one to navigate, and I think the approach taken by several people involved lacked empathy. With some more empathy ("service with a smile") things would have gone alot more smoothly. My main aim is the preservation of information, so I was alarmed at the mass deletions when they occurred and the antagonism displayed by many. A good solution here would have been either mass redirecting pages (and hence preserving history) to a BLP discussion page ("The following pages have been removed, you can help source and readd them"), or keeping a register or log of pages removed so they could be readded once sourced.
  3. It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? Consider the controversy around some election provisions... we had an RfC on the topic early this year, but by the election we still didn't have closure on some open questions. Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
    Note: there may possibly be some overlap with #7 and #8 in the general set but it's really a different tack. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
    I was neutral about the Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development when it was discussed on the arb list (I can find the vote somewhere) as I was worried it'd be blown out of the water for perceived elitism (which it was). I did ruminate on this and I think something like this is possible with everyone commenting BUT a page rigorously structured and clerks prepared to remove off-topic material. Secure Poll I think is not relevant to this.
  4. Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions/Pending Changes. What did you think of the trial? Should we ultimately implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?
    See above for my plan
  5. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
    a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
    b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
    c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
    d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
    e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from 2008 in that it's more extensive)
    f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
    g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from 2008)
    Note: this ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
    I prefer people to edit by their real names wherever possible and I always have, yet I do see the need in some areas to edit anonymously (difficult topics for one, there are some unsavoury ones I imagine folks avoid to avoid having anything read into their edits in future. So yes, for practical reasons I can see why it is a pragmatic decision to take in getting to where we are (given how many people are uncomfortable with open identities). Not sure what we can do about it (b) - radically changing it would lose a huge chunk of our editors and admins. Right now and for the forseeable future, I think radical change risks catastrophic collapse in editor numbers. Regarding (c) - is really case specific. I am also concerned as I feel there is a problem if the person alerting they've been outed has been editing articles they have a Conflict of Interest in. (d) is tricky and depends on factors such as how the account is editing - will come back to that one. Yes I acknowledge my identity (e), more arbs are also doing so but I think the status quo is ok for now
  6. Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
    a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
    b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
    c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
    d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
    e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
    f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
    Note: this also ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
    (a) is tricky - I think it'd be good to get some systematic review to determine how rare or common it is, plus what introductions new editors actually read. I mean, I can't really imagine it sitting too well here, or here, or even here (possibly here???). Do we feel young people get enough education on "stranger danger" to recognise someone behaving in an unseemly manner? Not sure. I am aware of several examples over the past few years, where the editor or a person speaking for the editor has contacted the arbitration committee and action has been taken. However, what we (I guess) aren't aware of is are we missing any, As a repository of data on this matter, the arb committee is probably best placed to offer some thoughts on this. (b) the scope of wikipedia's membership is such that there is a tremendous grey area from staff members and employees, arbs, admins, editors of all frequencies and IPs but ultimately we all try to do what we can to minimise and outlaw stalking. The WMF has the advantage of some paid staff who can be more proactive in contacting relevant law enforcement authorities etc. in cases of off wiki stalking and hence their reach is further. As far as liability as such and (presumably financial) aid, that's more a question for the WMF's legal team on defining their scope practically. (c) This needs to be taken on a case by case basis - what consideration is being asked etc. (d) A ban in severe cases (i.e. single-article focussed editor), with topic bans in milder cases - note that the material should be reviewed independently to determine that this is in fact the case (e) Fuzzy. However, proven problematic behaviour is often a flag which suggests other contributions need checking. (f) Obviously this is feasible in hte whole range of human behaviours seen on the wiki. A case by case independent review is needed to better determine the truth of the matter, or at least a more NPOV truth....
  7. A certain editor has been characterized as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
    Yes, there are a few cases (less than a handful) of editors whose extreme behaviour means their mere presence is upsetting to other editors - I think revision delete could have a place here in expunging their authorship of good edits, along with rewriting or reauthoring. I some ways I feel this is less vindicating for a banned editor who might otherwise gain something knowing their improvements are reverted and leaving a page looking worse off.
    Nod... the actions of Peter Damian, who seemed to delight to try to tweak our noses by making good edits with a new sock and then pointing out that he was blocked and why didn't we revert those edits, come to mind. ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
    a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
    b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
    c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
    d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not (in each case)?
    e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
    f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
    (a) (1) as much as possible, (2) that it occurs elsewhere is neither acceptable nor unacceptable; it just happens. I see nothing wrong with engaging constructively or defending wikipedia or wikipedian editors, but I draw the line at making criticisms of other editors on a non-wikipedia site -I'd never do that and I think is is unfair for other editors to do so. Keep that sort of discussion on wiki and preferably with the person you have a problem with. (b) no. (c) WR exists whether we like it or not - it can be a polarised hate-fest or a place where constructive discussion can take place (or both). I try my best to shove it in the latter direction. I have participated, but only to comment constructively. I have never criticised a wikipedia editor there (that I can recall...). (d) I think as long as a person doesn't attack other wikipedians there and remains constructive, I have no problem who comments there.
    I think you missed e) and especially f). ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (e) yes, at WR. It is patently obvious and has been so for years. As far as other people having pseudonymous accounts there, our control over off-wiki activity is limited. I think it is poor form to have an undisclosed account as it is a form of meta-socking, but we have very little jurisdiction. If a WR account which has made personal attacks or otherwise slurred editors or disclosed confidential information, and its primary account-holder becomes known, then I think that person becomes accountable for their actions. i.e. there is a justification for investigating the account and "outing" it. In a way, the same principle for invesitgating socks or checkuser applies. No reason to investigate --> don't and attempts to do so are an invasion of privacy. Problem behaviour suggestive of one account holder --> reason to investigate. Person waives their right to privacy. Regarding (f), the subset of editors which know or care about WR (which I think is only a small part of the community overall) I think are unchanged in their views as a whole. I think it changed about 3 years ago and has stayed the same since.
  9. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
    subjective question and could be applied all sorts of ways - best thing is to try and treat all equally and spend enough time reviewing evidence including antecedents.
  10. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
    Does a bear shit in the woods? Any large entity will have factions. period. We can't stop them existing but can show intolerance for disruptive behaviours - which we have existing rules for.
    Could you elaborate on this? Other than not tolerating disruptive behavior is there nothing to be done? ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Lar, we have a broad range of behaviours which can be deemed problematic - sourcing policies, battleground policies, edit warring, wheel warring, tendentious editing and more. I'd worry we're heading into groupthink territory of "He doesn't think like us so he's not allowed in the playground" if we sanctioned folks who'd violated no guidelines whatsoever. However, if you can think of a situation where an editor has violated no behavioural or editing policy or guideline at all yet impresses as a problem I am all ears.
  11. What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
Green - dunno, could get all cerebral and say it was the environment-thing/botany etc. but I think it is mainly just personal taste....

Submitted 18:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC) by ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Followup: Thanks for your answers. In many areas they seem (to me) consistent with your answers from 2008. Would you agree? Any major areas of difference? How would you say your thinking has been changed (if at all) by your tenure on ArbCom? ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We now have revision delete. One thing I was pleased about on my tenure was discovering that folks were more proactive than I thought on monitoring stalking and pedophile advocacy. Both were dealt with promptly and with a minimum of fuss. Hence my query about how much stalking we are "missing". Outing can be more complex than previously thought if there is an undeclared conflict of interest which has resulted in other editors (successfully) unmasking the editor. It can get pretty murky. In an ideal world, POV is POV regardless of the identity of the editor, yet in the real world it can be played alot more skilfully than that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another followup: Please look at the followup question I gave Jclemens Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/Jclemens/Questions#Questions_from_Lar ... as you know this topic area has been a serious bone of contention between us. Please, if you want, take a shot at answering the questions I posed as well. In particular I am interested in whether you now agree with Jclemens' view of A Nobody. ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with his view on the ARS, and points 1,2, and 3 thus far. One of A Nobody's problems which highly antagonised people was an insistence on trying to get the Last Word in repeatedly. I have seen others do this as well, although not to the same extent. As far as firm notability guidelines, we have a gap between people who hold tighter and looser ones which I believe to be almost irreconcilable, only that we have a "tidal" point of two independent sources in the absence of anything else. In his defence, he did point out alot of sockpuppetry, and he did some good work expanding and sourcing articles. Also I do see questionable comments from those voting "delete" at times, from "unsourced" to "OR" when neither appears to be true, or the classic "unencyclopedic" - these often go unchallenged. The whole setup of AfD encourages a black/white battlefield mentality which could be improved by folding in merge and move/rename discussions into the one process. No matter how bad his behaviour was, it doesn't mean we can encourage antagonistic/battleground behaviour in return (which was engaged in and encouraged). I'd also agree with Jclemens that as it panned out, the ending was inevitable the way of a turbulent messy divorce. Ironically it reminded me of how dorftrottel/everyme came to the same end (though with the community and not arbitration. What would I have done differently? Well, I would have been recused on this case, but I do think that a better way forward is to proceed with a case and provide some form of sanction/remedy/pardon as if the person were still editing rather than leave things up in the air Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Sven Manguard

I decided to ask these questions after reflecting on an hour long conversation over the IRC with an editor that I hold in very high regard. I intermixed her concerns with my own concerns to form this short list of general questions. Please answer them truthfully, and draw upon whatever experiences or knowledge you possess. I apologize in advance for all the questions being compound questions. Thanks in advance, sincerely, Sven Manguard Talk


  1. What is the greatest threat to the long term survivability or viability of Wikipedia? If the threat is currently affecting Wikipedia, what actions can be done to limit it? If the the threat is not yet affecting the project, what actions can be taken to keep it that way? What is the overall health of the project today?
    A. Without a crystal ball, quantifying and accurately assessing level of risk is very tricky. One of the reasons why the 'pedia continues to improve and look better/more professional over time is that it is a fertile ground with lots of editors and lots of ideas and innovations, partly related to its comprehensiveness of knowledge and free exchange between subjects. Thus I can edit with birdwatchers, astronomers, doctors, patients, lawyers or all the above on various subjects and all sorts of people have something to offer in other areas. The comprehensiveness is part of its appeal. I worry when attempts are made to slice off large amounts of content, whether it be BLPs or "cruft" result in loss of editors and articles. From what I've seen, material on smaller specialised wikis often just stagnates. I do worry about a massive introduction of Flagged Revisions/Pending Changes and the effect it might have on anon editing. I think alot of people love the instant gratification of changing a page which FR/PC denies. Luckily initial discussion on this seems to have settled down and we are more measured on if/how we plan to add it. The converse of this is that at some point there is some catastrophic or adverse outcome linked with a wikipedia page (whether BLP slander or medical information or whatever) and the WMF is (successfully) sued for not pursuing due diligence in monitoring content. Walking a line between all these is tricky and the situation changes from year to year.
  2. What are the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of the project? What processes do we do well, and what processes fail? What content areas do we excel at and where do we need to improve?
    A.The Featured Article process is the benchmark really, the content produced is for the most part what a polished, thorough comprehensive ideal encyclopedic content should look like - better than any encyclopedia in history. Yes it's had teething problems and yes there have been dustups, but it is a real testament to collaborative editing and its potential. Also noteworthy is how different areas of content production have grown and meshed together over the past 3-4 years. As FAC has become more rigorous, GA has stepping in as a convenient review point, so now we have stub --> DYK --> GA -->FA. For all DYKs recent problems, it is still a great way to push content contributors just that little bit more to make an initial article more informative and referenced. Also of notable is improved relations between the GA and FA processes as there appeared to be a degree of antipathy in the past. For all the heated discussions over notability over the years, there does appear to be a natural tidal margin whereby one can predict what will stay and what will go at AfD, and I don't think this is as much a problem as other areas, such as the various content conflict areas that echo real world ones. Monitoring copyvios needs more work, as does (as always). Although AfD outcome is not so problematic the process is, and meanwhile we have problems merging and redefining pages (solution below). Some of the communal pages such as the AN/I pages are a bit of a mess too. I have not been a fan of the RfC structure either (statements followed by support (and no oppose) sections reminds me of folks just talking past eachother and not engaging in dialogue...)
  3. What is your view on the current level of participation in Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have enough active contributors today? Does it have too many?
    A.Needs more that stick around longer. The more specialised and intricate the editing (with templates and inline references), the longer it takes to get editors "up to speed. There is also a global lack of reviewers and checkers, as well as admins happy to review arbcom-sanctioned pages"
  4. Does Wikipedia do a good job at retaining its active contributors? What strengths and weaknesses within the project can you point to that affect retention? Are recent high profile burnouts indicative of a problem within the project or are they unfortunate but isolated events?
    A.There is a problem when editors leave because of conflict with others, maybe not so much as in the past. I like to think we have a more just 'pedia than four or five years ago but have no first-hand evidence of that. Some burnouts are predictable and have something to do with the editor, while others are to do with the environment. Everyone has some emotional baggage or past issues, and many find encounters here resonating - sometimes in a bad way. Hard to be too specific here (really hard!!). I think offering an ear or kind words is helpful. I've seen folks leave and come back - I think as a volunteer project, wikipedia should be thankful for all who devote a chunk of time every day for editing for longer than a few months - all those people are making a pretty decent commitment and donation of time. I used to beg folks to stay, but people have to live their own lives and this place can get pretty diverting! I am sure many of us here can think of other life projects we've delayed or abandoned by being here and not elsewhere. So I wish them well. If they return later, I'll welcome them back
  5. Do you believe that the project should prioritize on improving existing content or creating new content. Is there an ideal ratio of creation:improvement? For the purposes of this question, assume that you have complete control over where the community as a whole focuses their efforts. This is, of course, a hypothetical situation.
    A.It is extremely hard to "make" volunteers do anything. For all the stubby or messy articles which need fixing and sprucing, I see whole swathes of biology (particularly botany) and history articles which need writing. I suppose if I did have some form of mind control over all the editorship, I'd have to veer the dial slightly toward improvement. I see GA and FA's value in representing "stable points of review" which can be referred back to if need be following article degradation. There are significant numbers of B-grade and C-grade articles it'd be good to nudge into a GA state....I do like to see how we can use carrots to influence what folks write about and there's been alot of discussion for next year's wikicup...:)
  6. Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
    A. Ideally it's something I'd like to see. Practically, I wonder if we'd be cutting off a supply of potential account-holders who dip their toes in first slowly.
  7. If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
    A. (1) Combine the (too adversarial black and white) AfD with the (extremely undertrafficked) pages-to-be-merged and pages to be renamed, into one "Articles for Discussion" - anything that de-polarises deletion debates is a Good Thing. Furthermore, a merge or rename/reframe is a not uncommon result, indicating significant overlap with the other two pages. We need to streamline and simplify some of our processes - less pages to watch not more. A second streamline/merge would be to see cases for mediation merged with wikiquette alerts. I'd rather a board where editor A seeks to work out an agreement with editor B rather than complain about them. It strikes me that the goals of the pages are similar enough to warrant merging.

Arbcom election questions from Rschen7754

Due to the changed format of this year's election questioning, I have removed all the questions that are covered by the general election questions (but please be sure to answer those thoroughly!) If you wouldn't mind answering the following brief questions that evaluate areas not covered by the general questions, that would be great!

  1. What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?
  2. Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?

Thank you. Rschen7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I hadn't seen Wikipedia:Competence is required before. It's not bad (but needs a copyedit :)). Seriously, an issue it doesn't really touch on is that many of these problems can also wax and wane over time with burnout, stress, or RL issues. But that said it's not bad, and (I guess) echoes thoughts I've had along the way as I have edited and interacted with difficult people. I am not sure "incompetence" (which is a fairly pejorative word and often synonymous with "hopeless") is the best or most diplomatic word to use however - e.g "Social incompetence" sounds absolute, where as the phrase it is attached to is relative...
(b)amused by the second edit - one makes an essay and gives birth to a meme, but then warns of misuse of the meme...but seriously, a bit of a heterogeneous page and tying together of several ideas already explored on other pages such as Disruptive editing, Single-purpose account, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground etc. So um...yeah...some okay points in the beginning but I wonder if it offers anything over and above the other pages. i.e. is it necessary to complicate this or could we reduce it to a paragraph and place on the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page under "community" -which I think'd be a good place for a summary of the segment at the top....I'll even offer to summarise it
(2) Aha, tricky question and one that will become ever more prominent as more specialised areas of the wiki (eg WP:MED) become developed. Ultimately I think that the thinking that a group of specialised (and in many cases expert) editors ends up with a better guideline than some older ones nutted out by the general community at large. As a content writer, although I aspire for material to be as accessible as possible, one cannot compromise accuracy, and also as the 'pedia develops a more polished look, conformity assumes more and more importance. In an ideal world, a bunch of interested editors discuss the point (not vote) and work out a solution.....but sometimes it doesn't happen like this.
For instance, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) is one area where article names flare up from time to time as this guideline in some way conflicts with Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names, with the more specialist plant editors lining up behind the former and often more generalist editors behind the latter. I think remembering that we are an encyclopedia first and foremost and that accuracy has to trump accessibility (although we try as hard as possible to make information as accessible as possible) gives a framework to work through these - i.e. specialist subgroups shouldn't be right be default but their knowledge often strengthens their arguments. I can expand more if you want.

Questions from EdChem

1. In this comment, Arbitrator Roger Davies was responding to criticisms of the findings of fact in the recent Climate Change case. He wrote that: "Their purpose is not to build a watertight case against someone, nor to convince the sanctioned editor of the errors of his/her ways, but to give other arbitrators a flavour of the problem." Do you agree with this comment? To what extent should Findings of Fact be persuasive of editors watching a case, the editors directly involved, and the non-drafting Arbitrators? Is it sufficient for non-drafting Arbitrators to base their views primarily on the drafted Findings? Please note, the intended focus of this question is not the specific Findings about which Roger was being criticised but rather the general issue of your view of the purpose of Findings of Fact.

The sheer volume of evidence is such that division of work is necessary. Arbitrators need to trust that their fellow arbs who have volunteered to draft a case have done an exhaustive review of the evidence. There are times when a non-drafting arb might review the whole case, or just segments of evidence as highlighted by other arbs. Time is a precious commodity and one has to prioritise what scrutiny is going to get what result. So if we have a case where an otherwise productive editor has been bickering in a contentious area, but not engaging in bannable offences, and it is heading to a topic ban, then a non-drafting arb spending an extra 20 hours plus is not a good use of time. "Flavour" might not have been the word I'd use but I agree with the gist of it. Any action which uses time needs to have a question to answer, namely is the use of time going to result in a change of consensus on solutions to a problem? For openness, yes, the FoF need to be persuasive enough to those publicly reading a page that the solution proposed is justified, limited only by privacy issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. There have been situations during cases where groups of editors have been calling for, or even pleading for, clarification of arbitrators' views. Some examples include:

  • In Mantanmoreland, when it was unclear whether statistical evidence was persuasive, and whether further evidence would have been useful.
  • In Climate Change, when it was unclear whether arbitrators recognised the flaw in the statements relating to Scibaby false positives.
  • In Matthew Hoffman, when it was unclear how arbitrators viewed the controversial actions of some of their colleagues.
  • In the OrangeMarlin incident, where a desire to provide a unified ArbCom position left the community unclear on the views of individual arbitrators.

I could list other examples, but these are sufficient (I believe) to illustrate my questions, which are: how should / do arbitrators go about handling the need to reveal information that is in the community's interests to know as opposed to information that is instead only of interest to the community. How would you respond to the idea of a mechanism by which questions could be posed to the committee where arbitrators would be obligated to provide a direct and timely response?

The default is to be as open and transparent as possible unless some private data impacts directly on decision making. The other issue on timeliness is about release of information from a private list upon request - quite tricky when one needs a majority of the list-holders to consent (if a discussion takes place off wiki and a good reason to use public discussion where possible really). There are mechanisms for review - RfCs come to mind and one was issued about arbcom in 2008 I recall. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. In the fallout from the Randy outing accusations and the subsequent AUSC report, Giano was blocked by Coren and quickly unblocked by John Vandenberg. In the RfAr that followed, JV wrote "As other members of the Committee know, there have been prior incidents of Coren taking action without strong Committee backing. It is my opinion that this most recent block of Giano was another such example of poor judgment on Coren's part." and also that "Coren wisely does not want to name me as part of this "spat", and would like us all to disregard the context. That is not going to happen folks." This clearly adds to the perception that ArbCom closes ranks to protect its own. Have there been situations (to do with the Randy incident or otherwise) where you felt that the community had a right or need to know something, but that has not been disclosed for reasons of protecting an individual arbitrator or ArbCom as an institution? How important is protecting the reputation of ArbCom itself?

Managing openness is part of a continuum - if two arbs have a heated discussion on some minutiae which veers off-topic on a mailing list and then resolve their problems later, is it worth reporting? I don't know. I guess there is a difference between openness and dirty laundry really. There is a balance to be struck here in being as open as possible but maintain some decorum I guess (morale does suffer if folks perceive it as dysfunctional I think), and it can be a hard one to get right. Fact is, editors often do expect people and committees in positions such as this to behave with some decorum. Also, some open stream-of-consciousness type discussion might give the impression that a situation is more chaotic than it really is. I have seen arbs post when frustrated, tired or exasperated, and I think there is nothing to be gained by having these posts on wiki. As far as shielding I have seen some unfortunate situations develop. Rlevse's resignation was a situation which had a snowball effect and led to a siege mentality being displayed which was unfortunate - individually I can see how it developed and how a few folks rubbed each other up the wrong way (and it was one of the spurs which led me to re-run this time). I'd have to agree there have been examples where the committee could have been a little more candid but it is extremely difficult at times to balance privacy issues with these - I don't think it is as common as some might suspect.

4. How do you balance what is in the best interests of an editor, including their mental well-being, when it is in conflict with the best interests of the encyclopedia?

We try our best to help editors fit in, and rejig or help them edit in a collaborative way, but at the end of the day, if their presence detracts more than adds to the development of the 'pedia, then they should not be editing (this is an endpoint however and hopefully along the way we try and be as creative as we can with solutions) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Offliner

Do you believe the nationalities of Wikipedia's editors are fairly represented in the current ArbCom? Could you please reveal your own nationality? If you do not wish to reveal your exact nationality, could you at least state whether you are from an anglophone country? Offliner (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Sydney, Australia and due to teenage shortsightedness learnt no other languages when I was at school many years ago (which I regret now). Diificult to say about "fairly represented" - I have Polish, Romanian, English, Scottish, Irish in my background - anbd have relatives in Poland. Many people have links to other countries. Politically I am left-leaning. Given it is the English wikipedia, is it not unexpected that anglophone countries predominate? We try our best to be impartial and I think ultimately that the trustworthiness or acceptability of canididates probably out-trumps any attempt to select by geography. Why I ran was I felt someone with more article-building experience was good to have, as well as a science background, so that is my personal attempt to address bias.

Follow-up questions from Carcharoth

A few follow-up questions, some related to your answers to the existing questions:

  • In your candidate statement, you say "I think it is time maybe we look at broadening the AUSC to cover admin conduct". This is something that has been proposed before, but as you know from previous experience given the sometimes frenetic pace of arbitration matters and the distraction of other parts of the workload, it can be hard to get such change started and to keep things going. How long do you think it would take to get such change implemented, how would you go about getting it started, and how would you ensure proposals didn't get bogged down and/or watered down, either within the committee, or when discussed by the community? Would you start out with simple changes and build on that, or would you go for root-and-branch reform?
The easiest way I can see is getting consensus among the 2011 arbs that broadneing the AUSC to cover admin conduct and just go from there and see waht happens. We could do that pretty readily. Community-based solutions have resulted in a huge amount of dialogue thus far with several proposals and no change in policy apart from an ad hoc Recall process one can opt out of. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of an open-ended set of questions here: Can you give examples of your best work from your previous service on the Arbitration Committee? Which areas are more of a weakness, and do you have plans to address any such weaknesses, or do you think it is better to stick to your strengths?
I was quite happy with my drafting of the Lapsed Pacifist case, and this ends up relating to my weakness as I was tardy in picking one up for months (but others were volunteering so I let it slide). Once I got stuck into it it was easier than I thought it would be. I was also happy I directed the community to solve the naming issue in the West Bank-Judea & Samaria case (diff is somewhere on the question page and my connection is slow here). I see my strengths in some way as observing the other arbs and seeing the range of opinions, as well as looking at the editors. Being aware of one's own psychological profile is very helpful when judging others - we all of us have biases - to pretend otherwise is like talking about the weather and pretend it doesn't rain.....:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your answer to Shooterwalker's question, you use the phrase "longitudinal net negative" - what does longitudinal mean in this context?
taking a perspective over time Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your answer to Sven Manguard's question 3, you say: "There is also a [lack of] admins happy to review arbcom-sanctioned pages". How would you go about addressing this problem if elected, and do you think it is important to gather and analyse data first, rather than relying on anecdotal impressions, before looking at what could be done?
maybe start asking the question on the Rfa page...data might be good but there was plenty of anecdotal evidence it was a problem, and I don't think data will necessarily change that. Anyway, something to discuss as a body soonish wherever I am Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your answer to Sven Manguard's question 7, you suggest that cases for mediation could be merged with wikiquette alerts. This is an interesting idea. Would you be able to expand on that, and/or suggest other areas where merging or closer co-operation would be useful? Closer co-operation between the mediation and arbitration processes is another idea that has come up previously - would you have thoughts on that?
  • Finally, not a question, but I thought your answer to the question on burnouts and editor participation (Sven Manguard's question 4) was excellent.

Thanks for standing as a candidate in these elections, and thanks for taking the time to answer these questions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/Casliber/Questions"