Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Jinkinson

Jinkinson

Coordinator's note: This candidate has expressed their wish to withdraw from the election; their name will not feature on the ballot.

While I am a relatively new user, not having celebrated my first Wikiversary yet, I feel that I understand Wikipedia policies reasonably well. My account was created in January of this year. Much of my work has been new pages patrolling and speedy deletion nominations, as well as categorization and tagging of new pages. However, I have also created over 100 articles, including 4 DYKs. This is the only account I have used to edit Wikipedia since I created it.

• Jinkinson (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

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.

Candidate has withdrawn.

General questions What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected? I have always been good at math, though I don't really see how that pertains to arbitrating; on Wikipedia my expertise includes having read a lot of previous arbitration cases, particularly the recent one about Chelsea Manning. What experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated. I have been to DRN once, when User:Michael0156 filed a report involving me and User:BullRangifer. He accused me of stalking and personally attacking him. I stated that allegations of stalking are false, and apologized for having called him an "anti-vaccine troll". As a result of his disruptive edits to NaturalNews, Michael0156 was then blocked indefinitely. Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions? I have always wanted to be the "nice guy", and I think WP:AGF is a good policy that should be followed. So, I would support being on the more lenient side. Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case). I am not receiving any income at the present time. I am a college freshman. As may be discerned from my contributions to global warming related biographies, I believe that humans are causing global warming. Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years? No, though I will have to finish this quickly as I have a test tomorrow, and, given my enrollment in college will not be able to edit as often as I would like. Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently. I am currently reading over the Bradley/Chelsea Manning case, and it looks like this was handled well by the Committee for such a controversial and sensitive topic. On the other hand, The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case? The thing about Wikipedia is that there are very divisive topics on this website, and the disputes over them often mirror those in the real world. I would accept a case only if it has been taken to WP:AN already and if it focuses on a highly controversial issue--otherwise arbitration should not be necessary. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about? One thing I think should be changed is that ArbCom should be more open than it is now, and that people should be able to question the decisions it makes, because it is, like all systems of government, not perfect. Perhaps a system could be set up to request amendments to a given request for arbitration via a petition, and ArbCom would have to respond if it gets a certain number of signatures, like the White House does at petitions.whitehouse.gov. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom? Not really, but I would like to state here that I think that rules are in Wikipedia's best interest; rather than leaving things up to the discretion of individuals, we should ensure that the rules are enforced. It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions? What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy? Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the checkuser and oversight userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them? I will not request checkuser because I am not sufficiently familiar with the guidelines surrounding its use. However, I have read the policies on oversighting a few times, and so I probably would use it in the event that someone posted Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator? Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not? Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole? Individual questions Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked. Add your questions below the line using the following markup: #{{ACE Question |Q=Your question |A=}} Questions from Rschen7754 I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. 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, 2010, 2011, and 2012; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping? What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and WP:OWN? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community? Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it? a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely? zOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept a case, or act by motion, related to either a) abuse of the tools, or b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator? What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas? What is your definition of "outing"? What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Wikipedia, and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)? Have you been in any content disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any content disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved? Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future? Have you read the WMF proposal at m:Access to nonpublic information policy (which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)? Thank you. Rschen7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Another follow-up question: What is your relationship to the account User:JPayneSmith? Questions from Collect I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter three were actually general questions asked in 2012, which I asked be used again. An arbitrator stated during a case "I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions? Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper? Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions? Past Cases: The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all? The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia? Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions? Factionalism" (specifically not "tagteam" as an issue) has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case? Thank you. Collect (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Questions by Sven Manguard 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 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 ArbCom case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion? Please identify a few motions from 2013 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. Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5. The "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion has proven to be hugely controversial. What (if anything) did ArbCom do right in this matter. What (if anything) did ArbCom do wrong in this matter. In the aftermath of the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion, several Arbs laid out their reasoning in extensive detail and debated people that disagreed with their decision. While it is not uncommon for individual Arbs to explain their reasoning in greater detail, it is uncommon for so many of them to do so, to do in the midst of a hostile debate. Do you believe that the ArbCom members' explaining of their position was constructive, or did it only add fuel to an already large fire? Do you believe that ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning in great detail regularly? Well, explaining your reasoning in detail is unquestionably a good policy for ArbCom to follow, given that there are many who question the validity of the decisions it has made. 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? I think that it is better that arbitration take place privately because were it to be public it would encourage The above question (Q6) was asked to every candidate last year, with several of the ultimately elected candidates pledging to make ArbCom procedures more public, or at least expressing support for such an idea. There has been, as far as I can tell, no progress on the issue. - If you are a current ArbCom member: What, if anything, has happened on this issue in the past year? What role, if any, are you personally playing in it? - If you are not a current ArbCom member: If you made a commitment above (in Q6) to bring increased transparency to ArbCom, only to reach the body and find that the rest of the committee is unwilling to move forward on the issue, what would you do? - All candidates: Do you have any specific proposals that you can offer to address this issue? Additional question by Sven Manguard ArbCom is a position that requires a great deal of trust, and in the past few elections users that were not long-tenured editors and were not already administrators did exceedingly poorly. What distinguishing properties do you have that you believe will allow you to overcome this? I have put in a lot of work into this project over the relatively brief time I have been active on it. I have learned a lot, and I think I understand Wikipedia's policies reasonably well. However, if edit count is all that matters, it would seem completely justifiable to simply pretend I am not running at all, as Sven Manguard appears to have done by saying that he doesn't think "I have any chance." Indeed, given the amount of influence ArbCom holds, he is probably correct. Indeed, were I to be elected I would be the first non-admin to hold a post on AC.