Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Balloonman/Questions

General questions[edit]

Skills/interests: Which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator? Your responses should indicate how your professional/educational background makes you suitable to the tasks.
- (a) reviewing cases, carefully weighing up the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions;
- (b) drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
- (c) voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and motions for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
- (d) considering appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or considering the Subcommittee's recommendations;
- (e) overseeing the allocation and use of checkuser and oversight permissions, including the vetting and community consultation of candidates for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
- (f) running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to CU if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
- (g) carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators are generally also given OS privileges);
- (h) drafting responses to inquiries and concerns forwarded to the Committee by editors;
- (i) interacting with the community on public pages such as arbitration and other talk pages;
- (j) performing internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming arbcom-l mailing list traffic.
A: (to be answered later)
Stress: How will you be able to cope with the stress of being an arbitrator, potentially including on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass you by the public "outing" of personal information?
A: I'm generally pretty laid back.
Principles: Assume the four principles linked to below are directly relevant to the facts of a new case. Would you support or oppose each should it be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? A one- or two-sentence answer is sufficient for each. Please regard them in isolation rather than in the context of their original cases.
- (a) "Private correspondence"
  A: Agree.
- (b) "Responsibility"
  A: Agree 100%. I have avoided off channel discussions in the past. When I used to do detailed RfA reviews, I would get requests via email, but (to the best of my memory) I never responded via email without posting on Wikipedia.
- (c) "Perceived legal threats"
  A: Without looking at the specifics of the case, I am inclined to disagree with this one. While I would agree that it is preferable to use other words, the use of them does not default to a legal suit.
- (d) "Outing"
  A: Agree, but I think I would put heavy emphasis on the last sentence about the persons wishes. I also think there is a degree to which motive for sharing information might play a role.
Strict versus lenient: 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? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?

A: My position on the tools has changed somewhat over the past two years. There is a growing chasm between Established Editors and Admins that should not exist---that being said, we have examples of both esablished editors/admins who appear to be above the law.

As for adminship/desysopping, personally, I think being an Admin has become a big deal---too big of one. It is too hard to become an admin and it is too hard to remove the bit from those who have abused/misused it. Once obtained, admins generally do not want give it up. Similarly, there is some fear of taking it away from others because once removed that too becomes a stigma and it becomes hard to get back. IMO, it should be easier to get the tools and easier to remove the tools.
ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community". Please give reasons.
A: Agree completely. ArbCom is not the Legislature Committee, it it the Arbitration Committee. Members are elected to serve the community and to adhere to the wishes/desires of the community. If there is an issue wherein an ArbCom member cannot adhere to the voice of the community, then they should recluse themselves from that issue.
Conduct/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?
A: Short answer: Generally, I would agree that ArbCom can't make direct content rulings.

Long answer: I will try to provide more thought here later this evening.
Success in handling cases: Nominate the cases from 2010 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
A: The second half of the question is one of the easiest questions here. The ArbCom motion that lead to the RFC's on the BLP issues was one of the worst motions past by ArbCOM. While the RfC's did a lot to bring the issue of BLP's to light and raised the standing of that important policy, but the motion was ill conceived and problematic. Many of the ArbCOM members who supported the motion, did so while at the same time as questioning the necessity or actions for the mass deletions.

Something needed to be done, that much is obvious. But I think the motion went too far is praising those people who started making mass deletions to make a point and in criticizing those who tried to stop them. I believe it would have been more appropriate to acknowledge that both sides had the best interests in mind for Wikipedia; but differed on what that meant or how to achieve that end. IMO, get rid of the first and third bullet point of the findings section and I could have accepted it, or alternatively they could have praised both sides for acting in what they perceived to be the best interest of Wikipedia. I have a distinct problem with praising somebody for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, even if that point may be needed. I think that praise created a hostile environment and tainted the process by creating two sides. The final paragraph, however, was great:

The Committee hereby proclaims an amnesty for all editors who may have overstepped the bounds of policy in this matter. Everyone is asked to continue working together to improve and uphold the goals of our project. The Committee recommends, in particular, that a request for comments be opened to centralize discussion on the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people.
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?

Individual questions[edit]

This section is for individual questions asked to this specific candidate. Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below. The question should:

be clearly worded and brief, with a limit of 75 words in display mode;
be specific to this candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages);
not duplicate other questions (editors are encouraged to discuss the merging of similar questions);

Election coordinators will either remove questions that are inconsistent with the guidelines or will contact the editor to ask for an amendment. Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time.

Please add the question under the line below using the following format:

Question:
A:

Question: Were you an administrator at any point in time? --Rs chen 7754 02:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A:Yes. I voluntarily relinquished the bit about a month ago when I decided to retire. While I retired, I continued to look for a reason to stay involved with Wikipedia and debated throwing my hat into the ring for ArbCOM. So why am I running? Because I do believe that most people, even those who disagree with me the most, still respect me and my opinions---even if we disagree. I think that is ultimately what is important in ArbCOM. Not that you agree with every (or any) position of the person who is on the Committee, but rather than you trust them to rule impartially and objectively and put one's own position aside.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
I can easily support an "Opt Out" provision but the question becomes, what is a marginally notable? If a person requests that their article is deleted, and can adequately validate their identity, then I see no reason to force them to have an article. That being said, if somebody insists that a person is notable enough for an article, then I believe the first step would be to discuss with the article's creator that the subject does not want an article about themself. If a Wikipedian still insists that a subject is notable enough for an article, then the subject should be opened to review at DRV, where the subjects wishes not to have an article are shared. In this case, there would need to be enough to show that the subject clearly meets our notability requirements and their wishes should be ignored.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.

I am of two opinions here. If the subject of the BLP principly known because of negative coverage or if the article is written so that it appears negative, then I have no problem with defaulting to delete. If the subject is not known for something negative AND the article is written neutrally, then defaulting to delete could impose systemic bias. Here is a perfect example, IMO WP:POLITICIAN was used inappropriately prior to the 2010 eleection to delete notable politicians. It is hard to conceive of a person who runs for Governor/Senator/Representative of a U.S. State for one of the two major political parties not having adequate coverage to arguably meet the Notability requirements. But, eventhough a person might meet those requirements, people at AFD might cite POLITICIAN and default vote to delete the article. This, IMO, can create a BLP issue, especially in the weeks leading up to an election. Many of these candidates experienced heavier than usual traffic in the days leading up to the election as people used Wikipedia as a source to investigate a candidate only to find a large tag saying "Delete, Not Notable." According to the "default to delete" then we would default to delete politicians who meet N, but have yet to win a major election because we have enough people using POLITICIAN as dominant over N.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)

I can fully support this. If a BLP is the subject of vandalism, then we need to protect the subject. This is especially important with individuals who are marginalably notable. While vandalism on Obama's page is likely to be reverted within minutes, vandalism to a marginalably notable person might go overlooked for days/weeks/months because nobody is adequately monitoring the article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - a trial, which ended up being called WP:Pending changes instead. Please comment on the trial results as they specifically relate to the BLP problem. (there is another question about revisions generally) Would you do anything different in the actual implementation?

e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?

Policy. It would be content if it dealt with specific individuals or about the article said.

b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?

This is a tougher question than first glance will provide. I was and remain highly critical of Arbcom's motion praising people for IARing to make a point and then being critical of those people who had the generally accepted policy and guidelines behind them. IMO, ArbCOM crossed a line and set a dangerous precident. I also think the position of ArbCOM set a negative tone at those first RFC's as it created extra controversy.

That being said, in the end, I do believe our BLP policy benefited from the wshole affair.

I also have to state that ArbCOM serves the community. After the Community spoke at BLP I and BLP II, it was up to ArbCOM to follow the outcome of those community wide discussions. The ArbCOM members who stated that they didn't care about the results of phase I and II, but would actively seek to undermine them were not serving the community.

c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
Note: this question has some overlap with #5 and #6 in the general set but goes farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? Consider the controversy around some election provisions... we had an RfC on the topic early this year, but by the election we still didn't have closure on some open questions. Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?

Yes, in many ways Wikipedia has outgrown itself. It is virtually impossible to achieve meaningful change because it is virtually impossible to achieve anything resembling consensus on any major or meaningful changes.
Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions/Pending Changes. What did you think of the trial? Should we ultimately implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?

Starting at the end and working my way forward. I do not believe that this is a role that ArbCOM should get involved with. ArbCOM serves the community and the community has failed to act on this issue---which goes back to the fact that it is virtually impossible to achieve consensus on any meaningful changes. I do think things need to happen in this arena, but that is not going to happen unless WMF gets involved. At a certain point, I think they are going to have to say, "Come to some consensus on this subject or we are going to do so for you." This is very related to Sven's question number 1 in my opinion.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

While I would not necessarily be opposed to registered accounts, I am not opposed to anonymous editing. The reason is fairly straight forward, if we took away anonymous editing then there would be some significant gaps in Wikipedia and some areas not edited properly. Consider the area of pedophilia. That is an area that most people, even with the anonymity of Wikipedia avoid. There is a fear that if they edit the subject in any way, even if it is objectively done, that it might reflect poorly on them. If you take away the anonymity, even when hidden behind user names, then you run the risk of people never editing the subject. While pedophilia is an extreme example, some people might be reluctant to edit other areas of the project out of fear or potential embarrassment. Hell, for some people, admitting to be a Wikipedian could be embarrassment. Some people may never edit Wikipedia if they had to reveal their real name.

b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?

c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?

As a person whose real identity has been outted, I have some sympathy with this question. I was shocked (and in some ways almost embarrassed when I discovered how widespread my RL identity had become.) That being said, once your identity has been revealed online, there is very little that can be done.

d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?

Is it outting? Technically no, the person who reveals their identity on the web, basically made it available to anybody on the web. That being said, if the person revealing the link does so maliciously, then it should be weighed as such.

e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from 2008 in that it's more extensive)

No I do not nor do I intend to beyond what is required for the Foundation. I do believe it is the foundations right/responsibility to confirm certain facts/identities and this would be a case where the Foundation has the right to know, but as an individual on WP. No, I do not, for the same reasons that I would be on the side of deleting an article of a minorly notable individual. I'd rather not confulate my personal hobby with my professional life/image. Let's take the example of a recently vanished ArbCOM member, many of us know his real name. In light of how things turned out, I can pretty much guarantee that he wishes fewer of us knew.

f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?

This is a tough one, people should have the right to vanish and to start over. Thus, I fully support people starting new accounts, especially if their old one has become compromised. That being said, if a person does choose to "start over" then they acknowledge that they will probably never pass an RfA or other "election" where past history is an issue.

g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki?

I think motive and intention have a clear role, if somebody is outed, then the person doing the outting should be punished whether the outting occured on or off wikipedia. This is especially true if the outting occured as an effort to retailaite or embarrass the person being outted. As for punishment, I am not a huge fan of perma-bans. Because of the anymous nature of Wikipedia, I would rather have the enemy that I know than the enemy I don't know. Let's take hypothetical user:XYZ. User:XYZ does something aweful and gets banned. Well, tomorrow he starts a new account as user:ABC. Same user, just a different name, but the history associated with XYZ is no longer tied to ABC. While with a user in good standing this isn't an issue, it can be problematic for troublesome users. Plus, I am a huge fan of redemption. There are very few things that can't be forgiven with time and effort.
Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?

It's been several years since I created an account, but at most the WMF should include a check the box "I accept" reminding people of the risks. Beyond that, people should have some understanding that using a website (whether wikipedia, facebook, online poker, etc) entails some risk and it is up to them to ensure proper safeguards.

b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.

WMF should respond to valid legal authorities investigating the issue. If the authorities haven't been involved, then there isn't much the WMF can do.

c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?

Users have anonimity to begin with, how will we know if a person has been stalked in real life?

d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.

Again, this is a scenario wherein the WMF can work with the appropriate law enforcement agencies. As for what we can do, protecting the page and blocking the user(s) as applicable are solutions. In extreme cases, oversight and deleting of articles might be appropriate.

e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?

There are several issues that need to be explored. The question has to be asked, is it truly stalking or is there a common topic in question. For example, two people editing political articles might encounter each other on numerous articles and rehash the same debates on each of those articles. That might not be Wikistalking. When the editing starts to go outside of the same genre, then it becomes easier to identify wikistalking. A limited amount of overlap might be present when looking to identify if the "stalked" party is problematic, but generally it should be very limited. The "stalker" when looking for problematic behavior shouldn't be engaging the "stalkee" on multiple unrelated pages.

f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?

Yes there are. Just like the boy who cried wolf, the person making repeated allegations can loose credence when always crying "stalker."
A certain editor has been characterized as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?

No, I do not believe in the "revert all edits" principle and blindly reverting all edits of problematic editors. If an edit is a good edit with a valid contribution, then it is a good edit with a valid contribution whether it is made by an admin, an experienced editor, or a known vandal. Like I said before, I am a fan of redemption, if a person is going to make positive edits, then why punish them?
What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?

In a perfect world, I would like to see discussions remain on Wikipedia, that being said, this isn't a perfect world. I believe in being open about how things process and come about. That being said, I am not niave to the fact that sometimes things happen off Wikipedia and that simply because it happened off-wiki doesn't make it evil. I also realize that sometimes off wiki areas can enhance response time and effectiveness.

b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?

No I do not.

c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?

Outside criticism can be beneficial and valuable. That being said, I'd rather have a page like WR where people can be held somewhat accountable for their actions words than on a myriad of personal sites that nobody knows about.

d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not (in each case)?

A blanket condemnation for participating in an outside criticism site? Never. First, what is being said is more important than who said it---whether an admin/arbiter/general user. Legitimate criticism is always acceptable. The big concern would be if the person is using the off-site pages for campaigning or making personal attacks.

e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )

No.

f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)

Purple, it is the color of royalty.

It's getting late. I'll get back to the rest of these later, but with this being Thanksgiving weekend, I probably won't finish them until early next week.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]