Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Geni

Geni

[edit]

I've been around since 2004 and since that time I've done just about everything possible on wikipedia as well as some stuff that is no longer possible due to software changes. So I thought perhaps it was time to run for arbcom. I'm certainly well aware of what arbcom does having been involved in everything from unofficially getting the arbcom elections to happen to being on the receiving end of arbcom rulings (I got better). I've also been involved in various workshop stuff as well as being asked to provide evidence in various cases. So I know arbcom and some of its members over the years.

What I would bring to the committee would be shear breadth of experience. Over the years I've been active in almost every area it is possible for a standard editor/admin to be active in. At the same time I've never really been more than a standard editor/admin which I feel puts me in a good position to understand the context in which the events leading up to an arbcom case take place.

These days I spend a lot more time reading wikipedia than editing something which should stand me in good stead for arbcom although it has to be admitted that the average case report is less interesting than say our article on Gamma-ray bursts. I've got at least some limited experience of investigating things through OTRS and the days back when I used to be the main 3RR enforcer. Sure not on the same scale as arbcom but still follows the basic principle of looking through large numbers of diffs to try and work out what is going on. I've spent a lot of time as an admin in some of the more ah interesting areas so I'm not greatly phased by anything from people trying to play politics to legal threats.

In short I know what I'm getting into and I'm pretty sure I can handle it.

Mandatory statement:I'm prepared to identify to the foundation if elected.

Alternative accounts. I have a lot of these. Most created to test various things or for projects that fell through. Since I've been doing this since 2004 I can't actually guarantee that this is a complete list and it may get added to if I recall any more:

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

[edit]
  1. 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 lot of experience of just about everything that can happen on wikipedia and around it. As a result I have a good chance of understanding the context of cases
    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.
    Pretty much everything that has been part of the wikipedia dispute resolution process with the exception of quickpolls (I haven't been around quite that long)
    I've been involved with arbcom cases as far back as 2004. I can't remember all of them. this one should probably be mentioned as it is not only the case that resulted in me being de-admined for a time but the most recent case I was involved in beyond giving evidence.
  1. 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?
    by the time things are reaching arbcom there is generally a need for some pretty extensive action. However it should be remembered that the two positions are not entirely contradictory. All but the most unwelcome people could probably get a second chance even if it is a decade down the line.
  1. 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.
    arbcom attempting to change policy is the kind of thing that would end badly. Policy needs to be seen as generated by the community in order for it to be respected.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
    When the facts are fairly obvious and the befits of moving quickly outweigh the risks of not getting every detail right.
    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?
    For the first bit see above. For the second it really depends on what you mean by community consensus. Localized consensus rather that conflict with key policy can potentially be overruled through a number of mechanisms one of which is arbcom. For the third bit Arbcom certainly can step in. In general they shouldn't but it is not impossible to construct a situation where they should.
  1. 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.
    No. I have no intention of running on the basis of what arbcom did last year.
  2. 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?
    Since stuff can continue beyond the end of the case yes such information needs to be retained. Not that its really possible to stop people. There are plenty of admins and probably even non admin editors who have non public stuff burred at the bottom of their hard drive.
    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?
    Impossible to answer the first one. Not least because there is a case that it should be kept for posterity. How it should be kept is a matter for the foundation and the developers. Access should be to the smallest possible number of people at any given time. Probably current arbcom members and a few foundation people.
    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?
    Arbcom discussions should take place by whatever method those involved in them find most convenient.
    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?
    Given the limited information they had to hand that was always going to be difficult for arbcom to deal with.
    e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
    "Geni" is a far more established internet and in many cases meatspace identity than the name that happens to be on my birth certificate.
  3. 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?
    Arbcom are the final step in dispute resolution. The role of the WMF is to do what is needed to keep the project running. Where responsibilities have ended up crossing over its generally because it is useful for everyone for them to do so.
    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?
    Arbcom are there to deal with issues that the community cannot settle through other means.
  4. 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?
    It has some limited issues but in my experience the ability of arbcom to address such problems in the wider community is limited.
    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?
    It exists but I don't feel it is a huge problem. More something people have to keep in mind to avoid.
    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?
    I'm not sure it is possible to ever have enough editors. Efforts towards editor retention need to be balanced against accepting that there is a natural degree of turnover.
  1. 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.
  1. No. I have no intention of running on the basis of what arbcom did last year.
  1. 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?
    None at the present time.

Individual questions

[edit]

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

[edit]

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.

  1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
    A:Obviously longer than it should have been however new arbcom candidates have historically always come in promising to speed things up but issues always get in the way of that.
  2. Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
    A:Since they will often consist of the most active editors in an area they certainly have the ability to do so. Most of the time this isn't a problem but it should be kept in mind it can very occasionally go wrong and result in the area becoming hostile to outsiders.
  3. 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:Insufficient information to produce a valid answer. Ignoring admins is not per se a problem however the other behaviors can be disruptive in some cases
  4. An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?
    A:Insufficient information to produce a valid answer. It would really depend on the precise issue involved
  5. Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
    A:They might do in some cases.
  6. 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:There are scenarios where that is possible yes
  7. When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
    A:When there is an issue with user behavior that has either exhausted all other options or it is readily apparent that other options would be ineffective.
  8. When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
    A:When there is an established pattern of behavior problems that other options wouldn't remedy.
  9. If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
    A:yes
  10. What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
    A:It isn't big enough. I'd say to some extent is has become less inventive but I suspect thats mostly because we've hit the limits of the software.

Thank you. Rschen7754 23:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from NuclearWarfare

[edit]
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
  1. 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.
    All of the them are anti-wiki and therefor fundamentally flawed. The way to address the BLP issue is not to limit who can improve them. The pending changes trial was a reasonable attempt at a trial until it was high-jack by people who wished to use it as a mechanism to introduce pending changes via the backdoor. This largely destroyed the assumption of good faith in that area meaning that further progress is impossible. Ultimately though that isn't really something arbcom could have done anything about one way or the other.
  2. 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?
    It's actualy quite hard to have a meaningful content disspute where both sides are acting in good faith (okey there are some areas such as nationalist dissputs where parrelle histories are possible)
    It's actually quite hard to have a meaningful content dispute where both sides are acting in good faith (okey there are some areas such as nationalist disputes where parallel histories are possible). In terms of disputes where I suspect the other side wasn't acting in good faith well alternative medicine issue tend to be a hotbed of that (in fact some of the first arbcom cases involved exactly that issue) in the end there is a limit to what you can do when you run into someone trying to actively promote whatever form of alt med they support on wikipedia.
  3. 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
    Well ultimately they all boil down to it being difficult to deal with a POV pusher who is prepared to try and game in the system. Indeed the more advanced system gamers of all types are the hardest to deal with. In the case of POV pushes there really is a limit to what admins can do which means that people need to have confidence that such issues can successfully be brought before arbcom.
  4. 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?
    No. Relaxing that causes way to many problems and the few cases where it can be relaxed are very much ignore all rules stuff. the interaction purely in an administrative role not counting as making an admin involved does need to be stressed though.
  5. 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?
    Realistically if there is legal action going on between two editors they shouldn't be interacting with each other. Depending on the situation it may well be that the best thing to do is to block one or both editors.©Geni 06:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions
  1. 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 can see this both being useful but with the potential to go horribly wrong. It could for example be gamed by nationalists to remove sources they don't like (for example a british imperialist could trying and get anything written in our former colonies excluded by trying to narrow the list of acceptable publishing houses to those that are london based). Things like medicine where there is a clear well established divide between populist reporting and hard since probably could benefit from such a guide. The History one strikes me as too broad (for example for people writing about WW2 1990 is not the year that people start talking about post-modern or narrativist methodologies its the year that the soviet archives started to be more accessible).
  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. 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?
    In practical terms consensus is still an option in the overwhelming majority of disputes since they are small scale. Larger scale stuff has been a problem for some time although in most cases this tends to be dealt with through going ahead and making changes and then making sure that the objections are at an acceptable level.
  4. 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?

Questions from LauraHale

[edit]
Core questions
  1. What content areas are you involved with?
    Canals, war whatever the book I got out of the library happens to be about.
  2. What article have you worked on that you are the most proud of in terms of content contribution, and what sort of recognition has the article received related to your contributions (example: DYK, GA, A, FA, FL)?
    Well no article I've been the primary author of has ever got above DYK. Southsea Castle came out quite nicely after I rebuilt it after having to shred it due to copyright reasons. Biber (submarine) is far from the longest article around but its fairly solid and covers part of an often overlooked part of submarine history. In terms of canals it would be a toss up between Portsmouth and Arundel Canal and Gloucester and Sharpness Canal. Heh I did get one video to featured status (File:Plasmaball vid2.ogg) although I don't think it is as good as some of my photos which I've failed to get through FPC.

Question from Tony1: Professional mediation and indemnification

[edit]

Restraining aggrieved parties in emotionally charged scenarios is central to the Committee’s role, and arbitrators are in principle exposed to legal action by those parties in a real-world jurisdiction. It matters little whether an action is launched or merely threatened, and whether it is quite unreasonable: the costs for an individual arb to forestall a default judgment in a foreign court would be considerable (and I believe it’s not hard to transfer an order to the courts in one’s local jurisdiction). The risk is greater because as volunteers we can’t be expected to provide professional mediation as an intermediary between wiki and real-world judicial processes—mediation that might head off litigation in the first place.

Given the WMF's annual income of some $20M, what is your view on whether the Foundation should:

  1. set up a process for engaging and coordinating professional mediation of disputes that have the potential to morph into legal action against arbs (where requested by the Committee and where the Foundation believes the arb has acted in good faith); and
    I doubt that is predictable enough to be viable.©Geni 05:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. offer legal indemnity to arbs after either a litigious party has rejected an offer of WMF-funded mediation or after that mediation has failed? Tony (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the conflict shouldn't really be between the individual and arbcom I'm failing to see a need for mediation. In fact that just provides people with an insentive to threaten legal action. To what extent the foundation should provide legal indemnity is something I leave to the lawyers.©Geni 05:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from HJ

[edit]

The first thought that entered my head after I read your nomination was "what's with the sockfarm?", so I'll phrase it slightly more intelligently and ask you why you need(ed) so many accounts and why you haven't kept track of them (for example, by keeping a record of the accounts you own). How many accounts do you have? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back when I joined wikipedia creating secondary accounts was pretty minor and thats one area where I've never moved with the times. The accounts were created for things like specific projects or in at least one case because I just liked the name. Most have very few edits or edits limited to a very narrow period so I have no real reason to remember them. They weren't hidden (with the exception of the account used for WP:NEWT which was revealed shortly afterwards) and in most cases the clue is in the name. In total? 25 maybe? 30? I really don't know how many of the accounts on the first page of Special:ListUsers were created by me (other than more than ten because thats how I discovered the accounts per IP per day limit) and I certainly don't know what password I was using at that point. Other than that I think the list is fairly complete but I can't guarantee that there aren't a few other throw away accounts that I've forgotten about. The only one used recently is user:genisock2.©Geni 03:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Sven Manguard

[edit]

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).

  1. Do you agree with my above conclusion, in part or in full, or not at all? Please explain your reasoning.
    A Yes it happens. I've been there I've seen it happen.
  2. 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 view is as a huge problem. Arbcom members know what people are up to and at least it gets things out in the open.©Geni 00:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Michaeldsuarez

[edit]
Initial questions (2011-11-18)

One of things some voters may be curious or concerned about is the few times you were desysopped:

I've seen this concern to a few of the guides users were constructing, so it might to worthwhile to discuss those events.

  1. Why did Ed Poor desysopped you in 2005?
    A: I was attempting to enforce a 3RR block against User:172 and there was a wheel war.
  2. Why did Danny desysopped you in 2006?
    A: Oh dear was that a comedy of errors Danny had apparently protected Poly Prep Country Day School per WP:OFFICE but hadn't listed it as an office action [1] (that may have been deliberate as at the time there was a worry that listing things there would attract attention). Anyway it just sat that under protection with nothing happening. I decided that the reason it was still protected was that it had been forgotten about (not unreasonable there was an earlier case involving Harry Reid) so I attempted to remove the protection. In practice I hit the wrong button and didn't unprotect it. About 24 hours of drama latter Danny unprotected the page which strongly suggests my initial view was correct
  3. I'm guessing that 2005 and 2006 incidents were minor, so I'm more interested in the 2007 incident. Why did you engage yourself in a "wheel war" with other sysops? Do you still abide by your original deletion log summaries and statement?
    A: Yes I did engage in a while war yes I do stand by deletion log statements except the last one. Yes I do stand behind my arbcom statement although I have more evidence to support it now.
  4. Do you disagree with ArbCom's findings of fact and / or their remedy?
    A: I agree with their finding of facts with regards to myself and their remedy with regards to myself. I'm not really in a position to comment on the other elements.
  5. Do you regret your choices and / or actions? Do you wish that you had done things differently?
    A: Well I wish I had known that Daniel Brandt had an entry in the Conspiracy Encyclopedia (page 187) as I would have had an extra argument. Other than that not really.
  6. Here are two of the answers you had provided to questions during your second RfA: [2], [3]. Do you still abide by these statements?
    A: pretty much.
  7. Can you please describe how you've changed since you were desysopped in 2007?
    A: Well I've got slightly better at walking away. At the same time the foundation and the various upper echelons of wikipedia have become a lot more professional which means a lot of the grey areas that I tended to get caught in have become a lot more settled.©Geni 22:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions (2011-11-19)

I've noticed that you're on Daniel Brandt's old hivemind page. The anchor used for your entry is "036". I won't provide a hyperlink due to possible privacy concerns. The following is located in your row:

2006-01-17: Brandt tries to characterize himself as an activist on both accountability and privacy issues, but Geni reverts him so that Wikipedia continues to introduce him as someone who is merely "monitoring privacy violations on the web"

Since most voters and I can't view the deleted history of the page, we can't examine what he has referring to, but I'm hoping that you can provide some answers to concerned voters.

  1. Why were you added to the hivemind page?
    A:I don't belive I'm required to explain Daniel Brandt's actions.
  2. Can you please explain the meaning behind the text from the old hivemind I'm mentioned earlier? What is Brandt referring to?
    A: At the time the article described Brandt as a frequent commentator regarding privacy issues on the web. Brandt was trying to add the unsourced claim that he was a frequent commentator on accountability. He was also trying to remove the claim that Public Information Research was/is a non-profit corporation that "specializes in monitoring privacy violations on the web". If you want to know where wikipedia got that impression from well I'm sure as a wikipedia review regular he would be happy to give you a copy of the old http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/rush1.gif page.
  3. Can you please describe your experience with Daniel Brandt?
    A: Almost non-existent actually.
Follow-up questions (2011-11-26)
  1. Can you please explain the following comments from your second RfA and your third RfA concerning ArbCom transforming you into some sort of example: [4], [5]?
    A:I didn't say that. It is inevitable that any action by arbcom will be taken as a signal as to when they are and when they are not prepared to act.
  1. What's your position on making "examples" of other users. Would you make "examples" of other users?
    A:Again you arbcom don't have much choice on the matter. As a result yes it needs to consider the effects of its decisions on the wider project. In many cases of course this happily isn't a problem but when a case ties into wider issues of wikipolitics then it is better to accept that the decision will have wider consequences than try and act as if it will not.
Question being asked on the behalf of a concerned person (2011-11-26)
  1. Sometimes good faith content contributors are set upon by trolls. Would you do everything in your power to help such contributors even, if trying to get to the bottom of the situation would take lot's of your time?
    A:Well within reason (I mean technically I have access to quite a bit of thermite however I'm not about to start using it to drop trolls into pools of molten iron, probably). Obviously there are cases when require either skills or short term time investment which I don't have every day in when case it may be necessary to hand over a solid set of notes to someone else. But other than that yes.

Questions from Russavia

[edit]

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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...
  4. 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?

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:

  1. 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 :)
  1. Well not knowing the full facts (no one other than the arbs involved does) means that it is impossible to say for certain that I would prevent it from happening again. However historically I have had a fairly good record of trying to keep the community involved in things.
  1. 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?
    No. At the very least you would also have to consider legal concerns. Additionally since we have some users who just want attention it would generally be best not to publicise their appeals. Some problem users are best flat ignored. I would instread tend towards the position that there should be a presumption that BASC will talk about declined appeals if specifically asked and will provide a rational for supported appeals.
  2. how important do you think it is that editors should willingly admit when an error is made, fix it, and then move on?
  1. I'm realistic enough about human nature to accept we may have to settle for only getting the second and third bits.

Questions from Thryduulf (talk)

[edit]
  1. Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.
    A: no.
  2. 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: Entirely depends on what evidence they can present that I have a conflict of interest.
  3. 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:Entirely depends on what evidence they can present that I have a conflict of interest.
  4. 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:It happens from time to time. Arbcom just has to do the best it can in such cases.
  5. If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?
    A:The same as on any other occasion.
  6. Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?
    A:Nope.
  7. Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
    A:Nope.
  8. In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
    A:When there are mitigating circumstances such as the user being new.

Questions from Joe Gazz84

[edit]

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.

  1. 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:There are a number of questions above that ask about change. Which one are you referring to?
  2. 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: I don't think the committee would practically be able set policy.
  3. 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:Those cases where people can be blocked for breaking a single rule are usually dealt with by community bans these days. Broader past behavior would be something I would take into account when deciding what needed to be done.
  4. 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:Well at he present time it would appear that I am unable to transmit information faster than the speed of light nor have a lower entropy than a perfect crystal at absolute zero.
  5. 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: Probably something in German because in theory at least you can extend compound words in that language indefinitely. Why? Because this is the type of question that you see from time to time by people trying to get under the skin of the person they are questioning as it were. In practice it merely tests how good they are at spin which isn't a game I'm particularly interested in playing. I've been editing since 2004 in a wide array of areas. I've done everything from wikification to visiting museums to get pics for wikipedia to answering OTRS queries to taking out new library subscriptions to get more sources for articles to creating new image upload process to plain old fashioned article writing. While I've been here wikipedia has gone from a just about top 100 website that worried about getting slashdotted to a solid top 10. So no no one word. I've be somewhat concerned if there was.


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

Question from Martinevans123

[edit]

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) 20:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking it isn't a breach of WP:SOCK so it would depend on what behavior people felt needed to be delt with.©Geni 12:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Let's imagine that behaviour was three or four years of constructive, good faith, non-overlapping, non-deleted edits on a variety of general articles. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As described that isn't a breach of of WP:SOCK although it might annoy people.©Geni 12:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should editors be blocked indefinitely for annoying people? Thanks for your responses. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I suspect that your questions mean that you have a specific case in mind which means the usual issue of comparing crafted hypotheticals to real situations kicks in.©Geni 13:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not kicking anything in, with or without socks on. Policy should certainly take account of real situations. But to be proactive, I'd suggest the project still has to be ready for situations that may never occur. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]