Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/John Vandenberg/Questions

Note: I provided long answers to many questions two years ago. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Jayvdb/Questions for the candidate. Feel free to ask me questions about my previous answers. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Answer: All of the above. An overview of my participation in the 2009 ArbCom shows a willingness to do whatever work is required. A description of my background is available here

With regards to checkuser, I majored in postgrad data communications, have managed the technical infrastructure of Internet Service Providers, participated in the Mozilla.org development community, and been around the interwebs a long time. I know a fair bit about IPs and web browsers.

I have a few years of full-time lecturing students in information technology under my belt, requiring the ability to teach, and grade great big piles of essays and exams. A lot of my experience in this area was teaching TAFE students, who have been unable to get into university, which is free here in Australia. This results in a significant proportion of unmotivated and disruptive students, but also many people struggling to reach their goals. In my opinion, this is very similar to the ban appeals and arbcom work. Arbitrators reviewing ban appeals need to bother enough to investigate the history, gauge where the person is current and, if there is a chance, put in the extra effort to help them succeed provided they put in the work required on their side to reintegrate with the community and avoid their previous troubles.

Having worked in many fields, I enjoy communicating with a wide range of people, in person and in informal writing. As a software engineer, I have experience writing requirements specifications, however I have not excelled at formal, professional or academic writing.

And I love researching and creating basic fact dumps about obscure topics, which can be quite handy when the committee needs to come up to speed quickly on something that none of us have heard about, and isn't yet documented on Wikipedia.

Of a-f, the task I least want to do manually is coordination of the incoming mail. My hat is off to the Arbitrators who were doing the bulk of it without complaining.
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?
Answer: This has never fazed me. I've never hidden my real name, my location, or my employer.
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"
  Answer: Support. The underlying principle is unlikely to ever change. The reason given in that case, copyrights, is not the strongest. Occasionally someone releasing private information, such as emails, will have done it when necessary for the good of the project, and it is in these rare circumstances that ArbCom will need to consider whether whistleblowing was justified.
- (b) "Responsibility"
  Answer: Support. Claiming 'I have private evidence that I wont share publicly' is not good enough. If action must be taken without a public explanation, the evidence should be provided to ArbCom, so they can ensure it is thorough and sufficient cause. The last sentence of this principle needs a bit of improvement, as ArbCom, Checkusers, Oversight and OTRS volunteers are all still expected to justify their actions, in public, or explain why they are not able to.
- (c) "Perceived legal threats"
  Answer: Probably not; it would depend on the case. As the principle is couched with 'should' and 'preferrable', it could be useful as groundwork, but is not suitable as a foundation for any findings of fact or decisions.
- (d) "Outing"
  Answer: Oppose. It needs to be rewritten. "Per WP:Outing" resulted in a self-referential loop - the arbcom principle quotes the policy, and the policy quotes the arbcom principle. (see my comments on the proposal during voting.) Also, the last sentence needs a lot of work before it accurate encapsulates how we address corner-cases.
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?
Answer: I believe in second chances, and more. But we need to look ahead and realise that there are parties for whom even ten chances isn't going to fix the problem, so we may as well bite the bullet now. Some of the factors that influence me to consider lighter sanctions are whether the party was well-intentioned, whether or not corrective approaches are likely to work, and whether the community has the will to make lighter sanctions effective. I would be leaning towards a desysop without a case if the party has acted deceptively or belligerently towards their peers, or they walk away from Wikipedia to avoid an ArbCom case.
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.
Answer: Agree in principle, however sometimes ArbCom needs to provide interim solutions. These should be minimalistic, targeted, and their application limited to the scope of the case. When a community developed and endorsed solution arrives, it should overrule the ArbCom solution.
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?
Answer: ArbCom has traditionally focused on user conduct, however user conduct includes the expectation that user abide by the projects content policies, and that users promote an environment that is conducive to content improvement. In the case of a dispute over content, ArbCom decisions can steer the content by ruling on whether or not the dispute was fairly fought, so to speak, and removing participants who are preventing productive discussion. The committee is not made up of domain experts, so it should avoid binding decisions on the specifics in content, except as time-limited make-shift solutions where consensus will take time to reform.
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.
Answer: I haven't been watching ArbCom cases closely in 2010, so my understanding of the events which led up to them is very limited. I'll be reviewing them more closely in order to prepare for ArbCom duty, and may expand on my answer in due course. Climate Change case is a good example of both; it wasn't pretty, but the result should do the trick, for a while at least.
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?
Answer: I snuck a glance at my colleagues answer, and I have to agree that the parties and the committee need to be brought closer together, especially for the smaller cases involving people who are not regulars at ArbCom. I would like to try having one committee member assigned to act as a liaison to the parties; their role would involve participating in evidence and workshop, communicating with the parties, and they would recuse from the decision if any party requested it prior to the commencement of voting on the proposed decision.
Incoming mail handling is likely to still be a major burden; I was developing software solutions to assist this workload in 2009, and I expect that they are still needed.

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: I have mixed feelings about this issue. For my own sanity, I have to disengage from the issues surrounding User:Mattisse and I'm exponentially happier not thinking about them. However, she was recently invited to return to her talk page to discuss a potential return; it did not seem to go well at all. She mentioned you as her mentor on socking. I don't understand what that means. What is your role in facilitating her return to editing at en.wiki? What do you say to the editors with whom she has had conflicts in the past? I'm one of them. --Moni3 (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: I have encouraged user:Mattisse to participate in Wikisource in order to determine whether they can find a new 'home' at Wikisource. If Mattisse is able to refrain from trying to participate in Wikipedia for six months (i.e. Wikipedia:Standard offer), and refrains from attacks on Wikipedia editors during this time, I think we can trial letting Mattisse back onto English Wikipedia. As an example of trial editing restrictions that I think are appropriate, Mattisse could be restricted to edit a) Wikipedia biographies of authors that are on Wikisource (i.e. people listed at s:Wikisource:Authors), and b) Wikipedia articles about works which are on Wikisource. Some refinement might be needed, and this case is one where the unban conditions should be acceptable to the productive Wikipedia editors who might otherwise be adversely effected. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: John, your stated period of lower activity—until July 2011—would complement the tendency for some arbs to be less available in the second half of the year. Could you be a little more specific about your ability to provide to the Committee with advice and to participate in at least some ArbCom activities until July? Tony (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: I will again be responsible for the compilation of the Excellence in Research for Australia submission for my university, so my priorities will be very different during the period leading up to the submission date. I don't yet know what effort will be involved; if the government doesn't change the specifications (ha!), there won't be much to do except turn the handle on a different set of data.
During this period, I will still be around, able to comment on general business and handle smaller tasks, but I won't be able to guarantee high availability or allocate large slabs of time to tasks which require it.
Question: You mentioned that ArbCom can help resolve content (and content policy) disputes indirectly, by removing editors who "prevent productive discussion". In your eyes, does this only include WP:INCIVILITY? Or does this include people who might be civil, but violate guidelines on stonewalling and refusing to get the point? If the latter, what signs would you look for to distinguish between a good faith dissenter and someone who is stonewalling? Shooterwalker (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: There are lots of ways of preventing productive discussion, including those you mentioned, and also using arbitration/admin enforcement needlessly. Often mild incivility is not the problem; we usually know when we are never going to be friends with someone from the opposite corner, and we take pot shots at others, and act hurt when we are on the receiving end. Provided it is kept to a minimum, or at measured levels, the content discussion can still proceed.

I look at the quality and flow of the discussion. Who is presenting their POV accurately and with sources, and begrudgingly conceding when appropriate? Who is derailing the discussion.

A good faith dissenter should have an appreciation for their opponents arguments, and is willing to research arguments they havent encountered before. If a well-grounded response is given, a good faith dissenter will know when to fold.

Someone who is stonewalling will usually resort to diversion, returning to arguments that they have already lost without putting more on the table, or overloading the discussion with irrelevant arguments or useless data, often using unscientific methods of data analysis or presentation. They try to win the battle, rather than win over their opposition.
Question: In your opening statement, you share that you previously resigned from ArbCom before your term was up because personal time constraints prevented you from having enough time and energy to participate. In your final sentence you say "Due to work commitments, I will be less active (or inactive) during November 2011 - July 2012." In all fairness and objectivity regarding the project, how do you feel you can be a strong contributor to ArbCom if you will be largely absent for the next 8 months? How does electing someone who already knows they will be MIA for a significant stretch of time benefit the project? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: I will be active for the first 10 months. I can not provide any guarantees during the eight month period which follows it, as I will be putting a major work project ahead of ArbCom and Wikipedia during that period. I can also say with a high degree of certainty that I will be available again after July 2012. See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/John_Vandenberg#sleep.

During my last term I was putting ArbCom duties ahead of my work responsibility even when my paid job became predictably demanding. From November 2009 onwards, this started becoming a problem, as both were suffering. As a result I made a decision that if I was to serve again on ArbCom, I would need to force myself to focus on work during this period, and I would need to inform the community of this in my statement.

I do believe that I am able to be a significant & valuable contributor to ArbCom for two years. If there are 11 candidates who you think will perform better, vote for them. In response to one of Carcharoth's questions overleaf, I would be happy to accept a one-year term if elected. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can you give examples of your best work from your previous service on the Arbitration Committee? For example, in your answer to question 1, you say "all of the above". Which of the areas a-j are a particular strength of yours, and which areas are more of a weakness, and do you have plans to address any weaknesses? Carcharoth (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC) As disclosed here, this is part of a set of discussions on 'previous service record' that I am initiating with all current and former arbitrators about their candidacies.[reply]
Answer: I am a jack of all trades, but a master of none, and I'm happy with that. My best work can not be pointed to; it is the knowledge that I participated productively in the committee discussions and performed my share of the workload.

If I was to pick one of a-f as a strength, it would be banned appeal work. I put quite a bit of time into investigating the history of the banned user, and in considering the appropriateness of giving them another chance. It is one of the least rewarding tasks, as the time spent is rarely seen by anyone, and it is rare for a ban appeal to be approved by the committee, and extremely rare for the decision to unban to be well received by the community. As an example of the time put into this, I caught User:MusicInTheHouse as part of a ban appeal.

Checkuser is a capability strength, both in using and reviewing use, but I have not used checkuser as extensively as other checkusers. I lack experience and field knowledge, which is often crucial when dealing with the recurring problem users. Due to the workload of being an arbitration committee member, I primarily used checkuser for investigating situations brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee.

In all of the other areas of a-f, other arbitrators were better than me.

The date delinking case will forever haunt me, as it was allowed to run out of control, and I take responsibility for that. In hindsight it was too big for a new arbitrator, but we were full of enthusiasm, and tackling too much on too many different fronts. I did not prioritise this case appropriately, and didn't participate in the Workshopping sufficiently. The structural reforms were far more important to me. An already delayed case dragged on further when it was put on hold because it was hoped that the poll would help bring a conclusion to the matter, and guide the decision. While the poll did help, and the matter was resolved, the decision of the committee needed many clarifications/amendments, some of which should have been avoided, but others were a result of changes in the environment after the election.

I took the Asmahan case in order to gain more experience in this area. The case opened on Sept 16 with Fayssal as the drafting arbitrator, and was put on hold. Due to exceptional circumstances, I took over the case on October 20[1] and put up a set of questions for the parties on October 24. Once the parties had provided answers, the draft decision went up on 14 November 2009. The workshop was an involved process, with comments by parties, non-parties and arbitrators, sorting out some conceptual and wording issues before the proposed decision. It is a shame that I can't claim the full credit for the Asmahan case.

As a result, I feel like drafting decisions is an area where I can be useful, but it is an area where I can't feel confident. I'll need to test my legs first, and not be distracted when I'm trying to prove myself in this area. If appointed as an Arbitrator again, I will first take on drafting another small case if the committee agrees, and I will focus on it like I did with Asmahan. If it goes well, I'll take on more cases of increasing complexity when I know I have time available to do them justice.

Another weakness is bloody-mindedness and being of limited patience when more tactful approaches have failed to work and the other arbitrators are running out of patience. This was a factor in the David Gerard matter, causing me to not be terribly concerned about impact of the wording of the motion, and instead delivered the committee decision (written by others, I must say) once David Gerard had gone public himself and there was support within the committee to proceed on that basis. This isn't usually a problem when we work as a committee, ironing out each others bumps, and after the problems with 2008 I was a bit of a stickler for making sure that committee members were not performing actions in the name of the committee without a proper committee decision. There were so many green lights on that case that I ignored the warning bell that I *wanted* the outcome rather than necessarily believing it was an appropriately measured outcome.
Question: A significant number of community members believe that the solution to the Randy in Boise problem is to strictly enforce behavioral standards across the board. Does the arbitration committee have a duty to help recruit and retain expert editors of Wikipedia even if those experts occasionally lash out at amateurs who are superficially civil, but skewing content away from the best research? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: If we were to strictly enforce behavioral standards across the board, comments and content edits which flagrantly violated out content policies would result in indefinite blocks just like flagrant violations of our civility policy. That would be nice. However incivility is so much simpler to spot than content violations, so the person who resorts to incivility is going to be blocked and buried long before the content problem has been understood and appropriate action taken. This disparity is entrenched in our community makeup, but it is changing slowly as our content, readership and contributors improve in concert.

I don't see a role for Arbcom in expert recruitment beyond what each individual can achieve with their real world associations. Expert retention should be a consideration for ArbCom, but if an expert can't deal with a few Randy's from time to time without going insane, it is simpler for all involved that the expert doesn't participate in our community.
Question: Rlevse vanished from Wikipedia for an incident initiated by his paraphrasing of copyrighted materials. There are cases where you yourself have done more than paraphrasing by copying materials from which you created articles (I gave one particular case in the talkpage). What level of paraphrasing or copying is acceptable? Or rather, is it ever acceptable, and under what circumstances? - Fedayee (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: With regards to the copyvio accusation, you neglected to a) look at the identified source of the text, or didn't recognise that its use of wikimarkup is a pretty good clue that it is a copy from Wikipedia, and b) failed to read the talk page where I summarised my analysis of this oddily at the time. Please see Talk:Fath_Ali_Khan and Talk:Qajar_dynasty#flattery.

No other evidence of copyright violations, copying or even close paraphrasing have been provided by the questioner.

In response to the question, copying or paraphrasing large chunks of other peoples work is inappropriate behaviour. Where someone has provided a good resource on a topic, wholesale reproduction of the information on Wikipedia is going to deprive them of the fruit of their labour, and our authors should consider this when they write their articles. If we do not write a better resource, with more detail, evidence and clarity, we should only include the basic facts and direct readers to the other resource for more information.

It is reasonable for short sentences of our work to be similar to those written by others, as there are usually core facts which 'any writer' will summarise in a certain way, and the prose involved has negligible creative expression within it.

On the other hand, when our work follows the same prose structure, or paragraphs have merely been reworded with a few extra facts thrown in, our work is derived from someone elses work without their permission.

Another circumstance where copying is permissible is where the authors have no interest in copyright and desire their wording to be reproduced. For example, if a company publishes its 'Mission' on their website, and someone drops that text into a 'Mission' section of an article, it is essentially an implicitly attributed quotation without the markup. Of course a 'Mission' section is not encyclopedic, and should be replaced with an independent and properly sourced explanation of the companies activity, however I have seen articles deleted as 'copyvio' because a 'Mission' section has been left in an article.