Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Kww

Kww

I've been editing Wikipedia for 4 years now, and I've been an admin for about 18 months. In that time, I've been discouraged by how many times I see Arbcom basically missing the point of the cases brought before it. I've watched BLP concerns be exaggerated to the point that nearly any admin misbehaviour can be excused so long as he shouts "BLP!!!!!" really loudly before he abuses his powers. I'll do my best to correct these problems. Most long-term editors have encountered me before: some of you hate me, most of you do not, but I think all of you will agree that I consider things carefully and try to act within the boundaries of policies and guidelines. I use my real name, and have no sock accounts. Needless to say, User:Kevin Wayne Williams and User:Death of Kww aren't actually me. I will demonstrate my identity, and I will conform to all privacy rules related to the position.

I'm going to add something to my statement, because many people seem to misunderstand my position on BLPs. I'm not in favor of badly sourced BLPs. I'm not in favor of badly-sourced anything. Give me a consensus to work with, and I would delete every unsourced and badly-sourced article myself, and that would include BLPs. What I do disagree with is editing BLPs to conform to the way the subject wants to be presented, and editing out information because we consider it to be unsavory. We have no obligation to present our subjects in a good light, only in a neutral light.

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

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

General questions

Skills and experience:
a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
A)In real life, I'm a manager. I've managed both highly-educated computer engineering staff in high-tech company environments, and poorly-educated minimum-wage staff in a resort environment. I've lived in three countries, only one of which is English-speaking, which gives me a broader experience base than the average America-centric Wikipedian. As a result, I'm able to relate to a wide group of people.

b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.
A) Unpleasant experiences, in general. I was involved in WP:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot, when I was a relatively new editor. It's as close as I've come to losing my temper. A request for clarification on an Arbcom decision] transformed itself into a circus wherein an Arbcom member decided that I needed to be topic-banned from all articles relating to arts and the humanities on Wikipedia, simply because I believe (and still do), that editors should be expected to follow guidelines while editing. Recently, there was an arbcom case where an admin abused his sysop bit and blocked me for carrying out the consensus to remove pending changes protection from all articles, which should have resulted in an immediate desysop for Scott MacDonald. Instead, we had Arbcom members acting as if the most tenuous of BLP concerns justified completely rogue actions.
Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you?
A) I tend towards strictness, especially when I see the underlying motivation of the editor as being to champion narrow points of view.
ArbCom and policies: ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
A)Make changes to policy directly? No. Comment on it and recommend changes for discussion? Absolutely. To deny that Arbcom makes policy is a bit disingenuous, however: in the area of BLP, our current policies are the way they are primarily due to fear of Arbcom sanction.
ArbCom and article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.
A)Again, recommendations are well within the purview of Arbcom. Arbcom cannot, however, force a procedure or mechanism into place. It simply hasn't got the charter to do so.
ArbCom and motions:
a) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
A) I assume we are referring to handling things by motion rather than accepting cases. These are rarely appropriate. They tend to lend themselves to snap judgments and cursory review of situations. Look at the motion in the case Scott MacDonald brought against me, for example: it violated Arbcom's reach, attempted to limit the things admins can do as a result of being admins, effectively enshrined a completely flawed interpretation of our BLP policies, and endorsed an act that previous Arbcom decisions have stated was grounds for immediate desysopping. That's too high of a price to pay for expedience.

b) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
A)Overriding community consensus isn't within ArbCom's purview. Creating a de facto policy by threatening sanctions is, but that is a weapon to be used sparingly, and should never be used to override the community. It can be useful when the community is actually deadlocked, but that happens less often than people think. Few things we do here require rapid resolution, and glacial progress is still progress.

c) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2011 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.

A)
1) I wrestle with the increasing restrictions on Betacommand (currently known by an untypeable symbol). I understand that his behaviour is degenerating, but, at the same time, his behaviour has degenerated due to an ever-increasing disregard for fundamentals of editing: in this case WP:NFCC. This seems to be a case of bad behaviour made worse by imbalanced sanctions. Where are the sanctions for people that willfully ignore WP:NFCC and strive to protect improper use of non-free content? Balancing the sanctions in the beginning would have gone a long way towards allowing us to preserve someone dedicated to policing an area that woefully needs policing.

2) It's not quite a motion, but I obviously disagreed with the preliminary injunction contained at that BLP case that irritated me so badly. I'm not aware of any admin that went back and reversed existing protections as a result, primarily because Arbcom has no power to demand that any admin undo any protection change that was made in compliance with our protection policies and guidelines. The only result of the injunction that I'm aware of is that NuclearWarfare felt compelled to follow it, and made a completely unnecessary request at RFPP that I then granted.
Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
a) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
A)It's unrealistic to expect immediate destruction, because that implies that the information which was used to decide the case will never be necessary when reviewing the case later.

b) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
A)Roughly a year, and only accessible to the Arbcom members that participated in the case.

c) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
A)Keeping everything in public is a noble concept, probably not a workable practice. If people are on mail discussing private material, they are probably going to mention other aspects simultaneously. Arbcom should strive for openness where possible, and I don't think that there is really that much private material required to handle the bulk of cases. Any Arbcom ruling that has included any private communication should explain what kind of information forced the privacy. Once that threshold has been breached, I think trying to micromanage the details is unreasonable.

d) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
A)I didn't follow the case.

e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
A)My identity is public.
Division of responsibilities:
a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
A)Arbcom should limit itself solely to handling intractable disputes and admin misbehaviour. It isn't an enforcement arm for WMF, and shouldn't attempt to be one. Whenever it does so, it tends to overstep its actual bounds.

b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
A) Arbcom clearly is taking on responsibilities not originally allocated to it, and should generally see its role reduced back to dispute resolution.
Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
A)Certainly we do. Editors that have been here for a while start to believe that regular rules do not apply to them, which simply isn't reasonable. The problem tends to result from a misapplication of WP:INVOLVED, which tends to mean that if an admin takes action against an editor that he has ever disagreed with, the admin gets flack as a result. Since the vested editors tend to gradually expand the scope of their misbehaviour, it's quite possible that an early conflict becomes an intractable mess for the simple reason that every admin that viewed the behaviour as a problem is now unable to act.

b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
A) It most certainly does have problems with factionalism. I can only do my small part by attempting to counterbalance the presence of ARS members on Arbcom.

c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
A) Yes, it does. I think it primarily comes apart from a reluctance to deal severely with vandals and marginal contributors. Working on a project is rewarding, but watching it get torn apart is not, and people get disheartened by having to deal with the same problems continuously.
Reflection on 2011 cases: Nominate the cases from 2011 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
A)Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands seems like it was handled reasonably well: ban against the main problem, no overreaction to the side problems. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee oversteps: the language of the ban agains MickMacNee oversteps Arbcom's powers by attempting to create an indefinite ban that the community cannot overturn. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling certainly arrived at the wrong conclusion, as Dreadstar is still an admin when he crossed a bright-line rule by knowingly undoing an AE block without consensus. His misuse of admin tools in the past to support pseudoscience-favoring editors was documented well enough that Arbcom should have been able to take it into account. As background that may go to bias, I consider Dreadstar's block of me in support of pseudoscience to have been quite improper, see the discussion here.
Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
A) I think that Arbcom decisions should be subject to an explicit veto capability by the community, restricted solely to the question of whether the decision truly falls into Arbcom's realm.

Individual questions

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

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question: #:A:

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide; thus, not answering specific questions will affect my recommendation. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those. Please note that question 3 has drastically changed from what it was in past years, though.

The first 9 questions are short answer questions. The last question is a bit open-ended.

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
A:10 weeks? A little slow, but not unacceptably so. This doesn't seem like a situation that is going to endanger Wikipedia's existence or anything, so its priority was probably a bit on the low side.
Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
A:In the sense that they tend to reflect considered judgment on a topic, yes. In terms of setting isolated policies that outsiders aren't allowed to question? No.
An editor has made many productive edits to articles on Wikipedia, including several featured articles. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators / experienced users tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
A:"Ignoring consensus" is generally a blockable offense. One man's "smart-aleck remark" is another man's "dry wit", so I'm not going to get frothed up over that.
An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?
A:Mentorship if possible, blocking if not.
Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
A:They can, depending on the seriousness of the situation.
Do you believe that "it takes two to tango"? Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
A: Certainly it takes two to tango. I have choreographed a line tango for my Zumba class, but I find it wholly unsatisfactory. Back in Wikipedia terms, it's certainly an issue, but one that is given too much weight too often. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour, and being easily provoked can be as much of a problem as the original behaviour.
When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
A:Sparingly, and only when it is apparent that other processes have failed.
When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
A:Whenever it's clear to me that he doesn't accept the role of being an editor.
If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
A:Yes.
What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
A: Our chronic problems consist of hypersensitivity over BLPs, people that want to insert mystical and religous points of view into articles and believe that they need to be "weighted" in the same sense that we weight secular points of view, the conversion of the Article Rescue Squadron from a force for good into a force that seems to serve primarily to disrupt the AFD process, and rampant sockpuppeting.

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 23:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from NuclearWarfare

Note to readers and respondents

These questions are partially my own and partially derived from a set of questions Lar asked in the 2009 and the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections.
The Arbitration Committee may not ever be required to directly rule on some of these matters. Nevertheless, I believe that they should impact the Committee's thinking significantly and am interested in the candidates' thoughts. The responses will likely influence significantly my voting guide for this year.
To those who have answered these questions in the past, please feel free to reuse old answers. I would however appreciate a comment about how and why your views have or have not changed in the past few years.
Candidates: I would request that you please make an attempt to answer the core questions at the least. If you have the inclination to answer the additional questions, please go ahead. Depending on your answers, I may ask follow-up questions.

Core questions

Please describe your opinion on the following proposals in relation to Wikipedia's BLP policy: an expanded version of opt-out , "targeted flagging", and a more permanent version of the old pending changes trial. In your answer, please discuss your personal views on the pending changes trial: what you thought of it, whether we should ultimately implement some form of it (and if so, what form?), whether the community failed to come to a decision about it, and what you believe the role of the Arbitration Committee should have been.
I'm strongly opposed to the "opt-out" concept: we document previously documented facts, and the person's opinion of having those facts revealed is irrelevant.

The pending changes trial was a debacle: many proponents of the concept didn't care that the trial was for a limited term, and refused to even admit there was a commitment to end it when it was over. It drug on for months, and ultimately poisoned the well. I know that I will never trust a limited trial again.

As for what I think of the underlying concept, I think that PC level 1 proved to be spectacularly useless. There just isn't a call for a level of protection less than semi-protection. PC level 2 actually seemed useful, even though we didn't get much of a trial out of it: there does seem to be a need for something between semi-protection and full protection.

What about "targeted flagging"? NW (Talk) 15:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not repulsive. Given sufficiently strong consensus, I wouldn't object. It is easily gamed, however: per WP:BEANS, I would want to discuss precisely how to game it via e-mail.
Please describe an experience you have had with a significant content dispute. If you have had any disputes where you felt that either yourself or another party was either not acting in good faith with respect to the neutrality policy or with regards to source gathering, I would be especially interested to hear about your experience. What do you feel you did incorrectly and how would you have realistically fixed that for future situations?
Colonel Warden would be an example, and my view at his RFC sums up my position on the problem. I was saddened by how many people were willing to defend such obviously intentional deception. People digging through his edits were even able to demonstrate that he was using search results from Google Books that simply contained all the words in his search strings without ever containing the search string itself, said nothing at all about the topic at hand, and including them as citations to "rescue" articles from AFD. I'm flabbergasted that any responsible admin would support anything less than a ban. Given that part of his sponsorship comes from an Arbcom member, I really have no idea how to resolve the problem aside from ignoring it.
In my 2010 voting guide, I highlighted several quotes by other editors. Please select two from "On Administration" and state why you agree or disagree with them. Bonus points if you give reasons for your answers
I tend to agree with MastCell. For example, how many good editors have we lost by tolerating the existence of Ludwigs2? How could it have possibly been worth the trade? Helmsterm's point is well taken as well. Remember ScienceApologist? His sense of appropriate content was impeccable, and his sense of appropriate behaviour degenerated under the stress until even his supporters had to abandon him.
Do you believe that the policy on involved administrators using the admin tools should ever be relaxed to any extent? Does your answer change depending on whether general or discretionary sanctions are in place?
WP:INVOLVED, as written, is fine. We have a group of unfortunately influential admins that attempt to expand it beyond all reason and practicality. So long as we ignore them, life should be fine.
Wikipedia:No legal threats spends a fair amount of time talking about legal threats, as one might expect. Interestingly, there is little in it about actual legal action. If editor A sues editor B over a matter that began primarily as a dispute on Wikipedia, what should be done onwiki? Should the two editors be interaction-banned? Should it be forbidden for either editor to mention the lawsuit? Should either of the editors be blocked? What, if any, should the role of the Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation be?
I think topic-ban on the domain of the lawsuit is really the only enforceable solution. It's too broad, but any lesser sanction would be gamed incessantly. I think Arbcom and Wikimedia foundation should basically ignore the existence of the lawsuit in terms of restrictions on other editors.

Additional questions

What is your opinion of specialized content guidelines like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Do you think it is a practice that we should encourage with other guidelines like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) or Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)?
I think it's a good practice. WP:GOODCHARTS and WP:BADCHARTS are the parallels in the music area, and I'm the primary author of them.
Do you think we should have a policy for medicine and health in the same manner that we have WP:BLP for living people? What about for corporations?
I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean that pushing homeopathy and similar quackery should be considered blockable, I could get behind that. I don't see how to extend that to corporations.
Given that it is said that the Arbitration Committee does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that the Committee does not decide content questions: the Committee has taken some actions in the past with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy (1, 2). Do you agree or disagree?
I think it has set defacto policy in the area of BLP, and I think most of that policy should be revisited and probably scrapped.
It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big (e.g. for major policy or software changes). Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it?
Consensus works surprisingly well. I think what we need to do as a community is to recognize that pushing irrational POVs is completely unacceptable and take steps to exclude editors guilty of that.
Some editors enforce the banning policy in a manner perhaps best described by {{BannedMeansBanned}}; others take a more lenient approach and only enforce the ban on what they believe to be "bad" editing. What is your opinion on this? Does the reason why an editor was banned have any impact in your analysis?
I think my editing record is quite revealing in that regard: the vast majority of my edits are reverting edits by banned editors and block evaders. Banned means banned.

Questions from Sven Manguard

Looking over ArbCom cases from the past few years, it is clear to me that many times, editors involved in the dispute being heard in a particular case use the Workshop page as a platform to continue their disputes. These Workshop posts tend to take the form of 'finding of facts that the people on the other side of the dispute have committed heinous acts, heavy sanctions for the people on the other side of the dispute, and people on my side of the dispute get off without even a warning' (it's usually less transparent than that, but barely).

Do you agree with my above conclusion, in part or in full, or not at all? Please explain your reasoning.
A) Generally agree. I know that happened on Sadi Carnot, and see no reason to believe that human nature is improving.
If you believe that problematic activity occurs in the Workshop pages, (even if you don't agree with my statement), what solutions would you propose?
A) I don't think it's possible to do much. In the heat of the dispute, the gloves come off, people feel emboldened by the company of fellow combatants, and all forms of bile spew forth. Any effort to police it would result in the risk of biasing the workshop result based on the behaviour of non-participants in the actual case.

Questions from Russavia

There is a still open RfC at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. As evidenced at this request, there are numerous admins and editors who have serious doubts over the Committee's unblocking of what is suspected, with a high level of good faith and WP:DUCK evidence, to be a banned disruptive sockpuppet. Do you think it is appropriate that after nearly a month and a half:

the community is still none the wiser as to what exactly lead this sockpuppet to be unblocked? Your answer to this question is important, as the Committee has not indicated that there were any privacy concerns requiring this unblock to have been dealt with in secret.
of being asked to identify themselves, those responsible for approving the unblock have still yet to do so, let alone follow a Committee members suggestion a month ago that those responsible for the unblock should be commenting?
there is still no clear answer as to why an editor is told by the Committee that future concerns in relation to the editor should be taken to the community, with a heads up to the Committee (I still have the email from 24 September as evidence of this), whilst the clarification request is indicating that the Committee will deal with all future issues in relation to this editor? Despite the email from 24 September saying that the editor in question is not under any "protection" from the Committee, once could reasonably assume that this is the case, or...
the Committee refuses to explicitly acknowledge that it may have erred in this case, and given lack of Committee response turn it back to the Community to deal with?

A) I'm going to give a bulk answer. It's been badly mishandled. I haven't specifically reviewed the behavioural evidence connecting the two accounts. Make the case on my talk page, and I'll reinstate the block if I think you are persuasive. Then we'll find out if the account is under any protection.

The last question is especially important as there are numerous uninvolved admins and admins who have previously dealt with the user in question, who are too "afraid" of going over the Committee's head, even in the face of evidence; if one assumes ownership of a problem as the current Committee has, then surely the current Committee must also assume ownership of their actual ownership of the problem possibly being part of said problem. If one looks at the answers thus far given at the request from arbiters closely, one can see that there seems to be a theme amongst arbs to suggest that the Community block the editor for other current issues; all the while the Committee avoids answering Community concerns at the actual clarification request. However, the other issues have only strengthened the opinion of sockpuppetry amongst other members of the Community.

Although you are not a currently sitting arb, I would also request a response to the following:

if elected what will you do as an individual on the Committee to prevent such things from occurring in the future? that is, of course, apart from permabanning me or banning me from requesting that the Committee take responsibility for its actions :)
A) The first step is simple: I'm extremely, extremely unlikely to ever grant a ban appeal. I view any editor that has successfully appealed a ban to be on his last strike from that point onward, and would tend to treat them as I would any long-term disruptive editor in the event of future disruption. I would consider making public identification a mandatory component of block appeal as well.
absent the declared issue of privacy concerns, do you think that BASC should publish all of its decisions with a clear rationale on wiki for Community review?
A) Yes
how important do you think it is that editors should willingly admit when an error is made, fix it, and then move on?
A) It's crucial.

Questions from NWA.Rep

This is more of an open-ended 2-part question, but it is very crucial and relevant to the integrity, accountability, and reputation of ArbCom members in light of recent events in the news. In the process of doing my due diligence on all ArbCom candidates (yes I am not just a candidate. I will be voting), I notice that most of your mainspace/article edits are related to 19-year old Disney pop star Selena Gomez including extensive edits to her albums, discography, filmography, and even her singles. I am assuming they are good faith edits (I didn't have time to look through them). If they are, the Wikipedia community certainly appreciate your contribution in this field. My basic question is what prompted your interest in the teeny-pop scene, namely Selena Gomez & the Scene (no pun intended)? With no intention of being judgmental, I find your edit pattern somewhat odd given that on your userpage, you claim to be be born in 1960 (a claim I find difficult to believe given the aforementioned edit pattern). Could the community take the information on your userpage you provide at face value? I, for one, openly admit that my userpage is for the most part satirical. If asked, are you willing to make the same claim?--NWA.Rep (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A:) Look over the edits more carefully, and you will see that they are primarily reverts. The Disney space is one of the areas that attracts the most juvenile editors, and has, by extension, the greatest set of problems with improper editing, sourcing difficulties, and BLP violations. I have most Disney stars on my watchlist. It's an extremely underwatched area. Selena Gomez rises to the top these days, but at one time it would have been the High School Musical crowd, and Lindsay Lohan before that. Gimmetoo/Gimmetrow keeps an eye on sections and C.Fred watches over some. NrDg used to, but he has retired. Most of it appears on my 13,807 page watchlist. My user page is accurate: Natalee Holloway supporters used it to find my address, photo, and place of business once.—Kww(talk) 11:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A2) I will also point out that you are committing a logical fallacy: I have not got 28,000 edits to Selena Gomez articles. I have about 57,000 total edits distributed over 14,000 pages, with an average of about 4 edits/page. I'm not sure what Wiki edit counter tool you are using. The standard one no longer shows my top articles due to my excessively high edit count, so I can't provide the exact actual count of Gomez-related edits. If it exceeds 5% of my total, I'd be extremely surprised. Even then, it's a measure of the vandalism rate, not a measure of interest.—Kww(talk) 15:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Thryduulf (talk)

Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.
A: Can't think of any. There are individual editors that I would probably have to recuse myself from dealing with.
If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case before you have opined (beyond "waiting for (more) statements" with no indication of leaning), how will you respond?
A: Depends on the reason. We have enough arbitrators that there's no particular harm in a single arbitrator recusing himself, but efforts to stack the deck need to be resisted.
If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case after you have indicated your support, opposition or leanings, how will you respond?
A: Pretty much the same as above, except the request would have to be more carefully examined as an effort to stack the deck.
What are you feelings regarding a sitting arbitrator being a party to a case? Is there a conflict of interest? Does the level of their involvement in the events leading up to the case matter?
A: Depends on the level of involvement. It's pretty likely that when Ludwigs2 makes his way back to Arbcom over his recent efforts to modify WP:NOT#CENSORED, I'll wind up as a party to the case. I'd just recuse myself on that one. If it's just one of those times that every admin that has taken administrative action in an area gets named in the case, I'd have to examine the level of involvement. Certainly, there's no need for an Arbcom member to resign simply as a result of being named as a party: that would be too easy to game.
If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?
A:Discussion and self examination.
Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?
A: No. The goal is to keep it from getting to us.
Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
A: No.
In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
A: Rarely, but people need to understand that profanity, expressions of frustration, and discussion of motives are not necessarily uncivil.

Questions from Joe Gazz84

I would like to apologize for the late questions, I've only just gotten the time to write them. If you see a question that you've already answered or one that is similar, please proceed to answer it, you may think of a new way to explain your idea/answer. Please answer all of these questions, they will weigh in heavily when I vote.

Can you please elaborate on what you answered above as to what needs changing? Why does that need changing? Why would that benefit the community and the committee?
A: Right now, we have no explicit mechanism for rejecting an Arbcom decision. It becomes an issue of civil disobedience, and that's unpleasant. Take the injunction in this link for example: no one obeyed it. Not a single editor went back and modified a previous protection despite having been told to by Arbcom. The reaction to the injunction was universally negative. Yet, the injunction sat, theoretically in force, and could have been used to sanction non-compliant editors.
Given that the committee doesn't create policy but only enforces policy set-forth by the community, do you believe it would be allowed or acceptable for the committee to set a policy if it sees a need for one?
A: No.
An editor, who has been extremely helpful to the wiki and it's surrounding community (many good articles, helps clear backlogs, etc.) one day comes to ArbCom for breaking a rule, do you/would you discount the offense and let the user off with a "warning" not a full ban because they have a good history? Why or why not?
A: I tend to think behavioural expectations increase with experience, not decrease. A full ban for one violation would be pretty extreme, though: I think your question needs more flesh before I can answer it.
How do you know what your limits are when dealing with a case? (No, I will not define "limits", please use your interpretation of what I am asking.)
A: I know the limits of my admin powers, and expect that I will be successful in applying any new powers withing their limits.
If you could sum-up your experience here at Wikipedia, in one word, what would it be and why? (This question has more meaning to it than you think, I care more about the "Why" part though.)
A:I'll answer this one later.

Thank you, JoeGazz ♂ 22:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gimmetoo

You were recently denied the CU privilege. If elected, do you intend to take either the CU or OS privileges? If so, do you intend to actively use either of them? under what circumstances?
A Certainly. They are a part of the job. I was denied CU for being brusque, which struck me as being odd, and for unspecified "controversial" blocks. That was an Arbcom decision, this is a community process. It would be quite possible for an admin to have the trust of the community without having the trust of Arbcom or vice-versa, so I don't feel any obligation to reject the tools if the community decides I should have them.
Let's say that an admin has made a number of incorrect and overturned administrative actions with regard to a user or topic. Per your statement regarding WP:INVOLVED, do you hold that such an admin has no possible conflict of interest with regard to the user or topic? How should inappropriate administration be treated with regard to future administrative work in the same area?
A If the real question you are asking is "Are you going to run a checkuser on me as soon as you get the tool?", the answer is that I don't think the current state of affairs would warrant me running a checkuser on Gimmetoo or Gimmetrow. It's reasonably well-established that the two accounts belong to the same editor, and my curiosity about why you are so adamant about not linking the accounts certainly wouldn't warrant a check. That said, if your account popped up in the course of running a checkuser on other accounts for other reasons (checking an IP range, for example, where I wouldn't have knowledge beforehand that your account might show up), I wouldn't feel any obligation to immediately abort the investigation, either.

For those that are curious about the history here, Gimmetoo edit-warred on Brenda Song, and I blocked him for 12 hours. It was a borderline case: the other editor had a vague source, Gimmetoo was providing no source, and Gimmetoo was arguing that the poorly sourced information (that Song had won a trivial award rather than being simply nominated for it) was a WP:BLP violation. It's a later, unrelated incident that seems to be the source of his question. He was reverting changes to citation formats with a frequency that many described as edit-warring. During the discussion on ANI it became a fairly large dramafest due to the unexplained refusal by Gimmetrow to acknowledge Gimmetoo as a linked account. NuclearWarfare blocked. I declined Gimmetoo's unblock request, as Gimmetoo was claiming to be Gimmetrow, but Gimmetrow was not acknowledging Gimmetoo. I e-mailed Gimmetrow to make sure he was aware of Gimmetoo. Gimmetrow did not answer that e-mail, and instead took to Commons to plead for an unblock on English Wikipedia. In the exchange on Commons, he acknowledged receiving my e-mail, and complained that no one had sent him a code phrase or anything to echo. So I sent him the code phrase. Since he was blocked on the Gimmetoo account and refusing to use Gimmetrow, his only option left was to use the Gimmebot account. In that same exchange, he refused to use the Gimmebot account, citing adherence to bot policy as his reason. Given the level of strange behaviour involved, I wasn't in a rush to unblock. I requested a checkuser be run based on a vandal who had faked evidence that linked his account to Gimmetoo, and Risker ran a checkuser as a result. Gimmetoo was unblocked by Risker based on checkuser evidence, and then, a day later (17:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC) in the ANI link) Gimmetoo finally spit forth those codewords. Based on Risker's checkuser and Gimmetoo's ability to echo the message, I believe Gimmetoo and Gimmetrow to be the same person. Whatever circumstance makes Gimmetrow so adamant about not logging in as Gimmetrow is apparently not in force 100% of the time, as he does occasionally edit and take administrative actions using the Gimmetrow account. To date, Gimmetrow has never acknowledged the existence of the Gimmetoo account. This is some point of principle with him, apparently, that everyone should have trusted Gimmetoo's claims to be Gimmetrow without confirmation, despite the unexplained refusal of Gimmetrow to communicate about anything, including the existence of Gimmetoo.

I feel like I reached out to Gimmetoo, e-mailing him, sending him code phrases, and getting a checkuser run that would settle the mystery one way or the other. Gimmetoo apparently feels so violated by the checkuser and NuclearWarfare's block that he isn't able to appreciate the bind he created for everyone else. He now wants to claim that I can not use any tools in regard to him, as a result of his distaste for me. I think this is a classic case of why WP:INVOLVED includes the text "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'." I see Gimmetoo as an editor with some apparently very strong feelings about his privacy and a mild tendency to edit-war when he feels he has policy on his side (a failing common to most editors). Certainly nothing so strong as to make me unable to fairly arbitrate issues if he comes up in front of Arbcom.—Kww(talk) 01:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was a simple question you could have answered easily. You chose not to, which reflects poorly on you. Your stated refiusal to recuse demonstrates clearly why you are unfit for any position of responsibility on this wiki. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Newyorkbrad

I'd like to commend you on the restrained way in which you responded to NWA.Rep's question above (whose tone and insinuations I found to be outrageous), and also for what you said in your answer about watchlisting and keeping an eye on underwatched vandalism-prone BLPs. You and I probably are never destined to see eye-to-eye on some BLP-related issues, but it must be said that the commendable efforts of you and others like you who do this kind of practical work addressing BLP concerns are at least as important as the efforts of people like me who are more likely to theorize about such concerns. With that as the context, my questions:

A) You didn't quite ask a question, there, but I will comment anyway: Wikipedia Review is where that nonsense started, with people making a fuss about the number one article in my last 4999 edits being Selena Gomez. What they didn't care to do was the math: 58 edits. 58/4999 is .0116. 1.16% of my edits does not a creepy old man or celebrity stalker make.

What can be done to increase the number of administrators and experienced editors who do the type of work you have described on BLPs and other high-risk articles, and to reduce the burdens of doing so?
A. It's probably unfixable. I'm an outlier of an admin: a profound deletionist and vandalism patroller who made it through RFA anyway. So long as RFA tries to emphasise content creation and dismisses recent changes patrol as some kind of trivial work, you won't see many admins with my mindset.
What specific aspects of current BLP policy do you believe are misguided and should be overturned, as reflected in your statement and some of your answers above? What specific advantages and disadvantages does your vision of how BLP should be addressed differ from how things operate now, both in theory and in practice?
A. The major problems are the sensitivity to the perceived "negative" aspects of some information, acceding to the wishes of the subject, and the excessively wide latitude granted to admins under enforcement actions. Kelly Wearstler is an example: being a Playmate of the Month is probably the most notable single thing she has ever done. Yet, the standard Playmate infobox was deemed too unsightly for her page, primarily because Wearstler herself would rather that her Wikipedia page emphasize her interior design business rather than her Playmate past. We shouldn't be treating her Playmate status as more negative than her interior designer status (per NPOV), and shouldn't be adjusting the content of articles to optimise their promotional capacity for the subject's business. As for the free rein granted admins in enforcement, Scott blocking me is a prime example. There wasn't even a hint of danger to a BLP at the time of the block. My protection decisions were within policy, I was acting under community consensus, no negative information about any living person had been inserted in any article, and, not surprisingly, the articles I unprotected because my judgement said they were at low risk of vandalism haven't been vandalized. Yet, Scott essentially had his actions endorsed by Arbcom instead of being desysopped, all because he acted under the cover of BLP. That's ludicrous. We need to make it clear that BLP is a concern, but not a free ticket to running roughshod over other editors and admins.

(later continuation) I would like to make it clear that I see SarahStierch's modifications to the article as being worthwhile, although they build on a flawed foundation. An editor claiming to be Kelly Wearstler made the original set of objectionable changes (http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Special:Contributions/Kellywearstler) and Scott MacDonald advanced the ludicrous argument that publishing her bust size (a standard part of the Playmate datasheet and hence the Playmate infobox) was "harmful" here. There's no way that publishing information from a Playmate datasheet is in any way "harmful" (or "disrespectful", or violating WP:UNDUE, or violating WP:BLP) to a former Playmate. The only rationale that would get you there is somehow believing that being a Playmate is not as desirable as being an interior designer, and that violates WP:NPOV. This kind of reasoning is simply removing information from BLPs based on it being distasteful or embarrassing, and that is clearly not justifiable under WP:BLP.

Questions from Michaeldsuarez

Questions being asked on the behalf of a concerned person

KWW, in your introduction you say:

"I've watched BLP concerns be exaggerated to the point that nearly any admin misbehaviour can be excused so long as he shouts 'BLP!!!!!' really loudly before he abuses his powers. I'll do my best to correct these problems."

[Concerned person says that this] is encouraging. [Concerned person's] questions for you are:

What is a bigger offense in your opinion a) blocking an established editor while involved or b) unblocking an established editor without seeking consensus first?
A: Before answering, I will require your assurance that "concerned person" is not a blocked or banned editor.
From your comments on Epeefleche's talk page [concerned person] noticed you especially concern about canvassing. As an arbitrator will you support desysoping of an administrator that responds to canvassing?
A: Before answering, I will require your assurance that "concerned person" is not a blocked or banned editor.

My own questions

Considering your request of assurance, maybe I can or maybe I can't. I refuse to say anything that'll compromise my confidant's anonymity. This confidant has entrusted his or her identity and questions with me, and I won't abuse that confidant's trust in me.

I can assure you that I'm not block or banned, and here are my questions:

Will you respect my confidant's anonymity and privacy?
A: Certainly.
Will you respect what my confidant has to say and ask? Shouldn't this person have a voice in this election in order to have his or her concerns addressed?
A: Respect? Probably. Listen to and address? Not if the answer to my question above is what I think it is. Banned and blocked users have no say in the governance or editorial policies of Wikipedia.
Do you believe that the concerns of blocked or banned users are insignificant?
A: While I understand that it can lead to an self-perpetuating system, they are irrelevant to this process, which is somewhat different than insignificant. They have avenues of redress, even if it requires addressing WMF or the public directly instead of our governing structure.
What's more important: what's being said or who's saying it?
A: Generally, what's being said. In this context and conversation, I have to point out that on-wiki, the exception is blocked and banned users. If the system of blocking and banning is to have any meaning, it has to be respected and enforced. That means that no on-wiki communication with blocked or banned users is permitted, even via proxy editing (which is what I suspect your previous questions were).

Question from Martinevans123

If an editor creates multiple accounts to edit articles in different subject areas, not realising that this is in breach of WP:SOCK, how should he or she be dealt with? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not a violation of WP:SOCK. If the separate accounts never come together (never edit the same articles, never join the same discussions, never participate on the same policy pages), there's no violation. In general, when there is a violation of WP:SOCK, the right action is to block the socks, and either warn or block the master. Second offenses generally result in permanent blocks against the master. Knowingly socking is completely unacceptable behaviour, and a clear sign that the editor has no place here.—Kww(talk) 20:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Do you think there is any limit on the number of separate, independent accounts that one user can operate? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been discussed, and no consensus has been reached. So far as I'm concerned, having more than one undisclosed alternate is certainly grounds for suspicion: it's very rare that there would be a good reason for that to happen. Disclosed alternates aren't much of a problem, but there needs to be a clearly identified reason for each one.—Kww(talk) 18:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that it's not always easy to agree on what constitutes a good enough "reason", even if it is very clearly identified. I also think it's possible that even established editors might not realise that clear indications are required for linking "disclosed" accounts. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]