Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Robert McClenon/Questions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Individual questions[edit]

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

  2. Are you aware, that English is de facto world language and English Wikipedia is used by vast number of global population, not only from English-speaking-countries (as (mostly) most trustworthy of all wikipedias)? And thusly, e.g. Point Of View of e.g. US of A might not be Neutral Point Of View in things, that occur all over the globe, like measles or climate or cars :) BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure that I understand the question. It appears to say that the English Wikipedia should avoid taking either an Anglophone-centric point of view or a US-centric point of view. If so, I agree, in particular that a US-centric point of view should be avoided. There are tags that are used to indicate that articles do not take an adequately global view of their subjects. Climate is a different type of topic in terms of worldwide coverage than measles or cars. Climate should be mostly discussed at the regional and national levels. Measles and automobiles should be covered largely on a worldwide basis with attention to regional and national aspects, such as what the incidence of the disease is in different countries, and what countries manufacture vehicles and how extensive their ownership is by countries.
  4. This year's committee has had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators. What experience do you have, particularly on Wikipedia, with doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't give any one example, but following through on duty or commitments isn't illustrated by one example. I will point to two general illustrations. The first is the numerous long-running cases that I have mediated at DRN, some of which were tedious for various reasons, mostly having to do with the editors. The Italian political parties case and the Indian languages case were two of the longest. The second illustration is my record of user contributions, which will show that there are only rarely gaps in my editing.
  6. Please talk about your status as a non-admin who has not been previously vetted by the community. What qualities do you have to be the first non-admin elected to ArbCom? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I am asking the community to vet me by electing me to a term on the ArbCom, but you knew that. A quality that I am bringing is extensive experience in resolving content disputes, and I think that I know what sort of conduct complicates the resolution of content disputes. Also, I think that ArbCom would benefit from having an arbitrator who has not been an admin, because they might take a different perspective on cases of alleged admin abuse. I will continue this answer with my answer to the next question.
  8. How do you think not being an administrator will affect your work on ArbCom? QuicoleJR (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that ArbCom will benefit from having an arbitrator who has not been an admin, in particular in cases of alleged admin abuse. I don't think that ArbCom should usually wait to hear from the accused admin before deciding whether a case should be accepted, at least if the case is strong. If there is a strong case, ArbCom should accept the case for hearing to hear the admin as well as any accuser. I will comment that most claims of admin abuse are bunk, although most of the worthless cases against admins are not filed as ArbCom case requests.
  10. Do you think ArbCom should be more transparent about the outcomes of private inquiries, especially regarding admins and functionaries? This question is motivated by the admin meatpuppetry situation in September, but it's up to you whether to discuss that situation in particular. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 06:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbCom cases in which non-public information is used always pose a difficult question of the balance between transparency and privacy. I found that particular case especially troublesome because, as I said at the time, it was not clear to the community what the case was about. It appears to have been about two editors who cohabit, and one of them is a seldom-active admin. I am still not satisfied with the resolution of that case. In general, ArbCom should maintain the maximum transparency that is consistent with privacy. When possible, cases should be based on public information, and action based on private information should not be in public cases. That particular case was annoying because there was just enough public information for the case to provoke interest without satisfying it.
  12. The majority of ArbCom's workload is in handling private matters, not public ones such as cases. Can you please elaborate on how you will handle the large volume of private work the Committee receives? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that this is as much a statement as a question, or a question of the form "Are you ready for a lot of work on private matters?" I had known in the past that arbitrators had said that they had an excessive volume of work on private matters, and now I know that there is still a lot of such work. The answer is that I am ready for a lot of work on private matters that will be handled by email. There is more work than can be seen by the public.
  14. In one case this year, ArbCom themselves served as the "filing party", accepting a case that had not immediately been brought to them. What are your thoughts on ArbCom taking actions via full cases when they don't have a request from the community to do so? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I think that ArbCom should occasionally take a case on its own motion. Second, the case that you mention was unusual, because it was the response to a partisan journal article, and I think that ArbCom was right in accepting it. Third, ArbCom should occasionally accept a case when a dispute at WP:ANI has become a great monster with tentacles without waiting for an editor to file a case request. An example of such a case, which ArbCom did accept, was the case involving behavior in deletion discussions.
  16. Arbcom seems to limit itself to a very narrow range of responses to admins, with nothing in the gap between admonition and desysopping. What sort of things should it do when admonition isn't enough but a desysop is too much?ϢereSpielChequers 09:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen that sometimes in admin cases there is discussion of some intermediate action between admonition and desysopping, and that often it is concluded that there probably is no feasible intermediate restriction. In cases where an admin and another editor have a bad history, an interaction ban can be considered, just as if neither editor as an admin. I think that ArbCom should always consider whether such an intermediate action exists, and in marginal admin cases, ArbCom should either have a workshop phase to ask the community for ideas, or some comparable request for ideas.
  18. There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past, and there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force. Tension on the talkpage of the Elbonian civil war has spilled out into an acrimonious RFA for one of the protagonists, and the press have reported demonstrations about this article in the capital town of Elbonia and in several villages during the current visit of the US president to Elbonia. Cases being filed with Arbcom include: You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility; Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager; Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. Which bits of the Universal Code of Conduct have been breached by this kerfuffle and what if anything should Arbcom do about it? ϢereSpielChequers 09:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reread the Universal Code of Conduct. The UCOC is largely about civility, which is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, and mostly states principles that are also the principles of the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The hypothetical case in point is largely about cross-wiki conduct. The ArbCom should coordinate with the U4C and stewards to ensure that the English Wikipedia is seen by the U4C as governing itself effectively, so that the U4C does not intervene. The question was what parts of the UCOC have been breached. It isn't obvious from the description what parts of the UCOC have been broken, either in a contentious RFA or in other matters, but there has probably be incivility, and maybe harassment. There are competence issues, both in the English Wikipedia and the Elbonian Wikipedia; only the English Wikipedia issues concern the ArbCom. There is a competence issue about at least one English administrator. ArbCom should open at least one case, both about any questioned administrators, and to demonstrate to the U4C that the English Wikipedia is governing itself and does not need to be governed by the U4C. The twelve-year-old admin is an interesting issue. I could not find a rule against a twelve-year-old admin. Many web communities have a minimum age of thirteen, but it appears that we do not. There was either a serious breach of policy in doxing the admin as to her age, or she made a serious error in judgment in saying that she is in sixth grade.
  20. I love to sing the music of Mozart and Pärt, Requiem and Da pacem Domine. What does the RfC about an infobox for Mozart tell you regarding WP:CT infoboxes, and can you offer ideas towards peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What the RFC tells me is that there are a vocal minority of editors who apparently dislike all infoboxes and oppose all infoboxes. At the same time, nearly all of the other editors who participated support infoboxes, at least for major composers.Infobox cases continue to divide the community, which is illustrated by the opposition of some editors to an infobox for one of the greatest classical composers. The RFC does not show evidence of disruptive editing, but I haven't read the prior talk page discussion, and I know that some opponents of infoboxes have edited disruptively, and it was primarily the opponents of infoboxes whose behavior made sanctions necessary. I have twothree thoughts about further action to reduce infobox wars. First, any WikiProject, including WP:WikiProject Classical Music, can adopt a guideline that an infobox is the norm for C-Class articles. Second, if specific editors are problematic, the contentious topics procedure can be used to topic-ban them from infobox discussions. In general, it is the anti-infobox editors who are difficultthere are a few difficult editors, some opposing infoboxes, and some supporting them, and existing remedies are available. Third, the guidelines on infoboxes should be revisited de novo. Also, fourth, music disputes are too common in both the areas of popular music and classical music, probably because the editors are passionate about their love of the music. Maybe editors should listen to music when angry rather than editing when angry. Fifth, as part of the de novo review of the guidelines on infoboxes, WikiProjects should be encouraged to establish guidelines for when infoboxes are in order for articles in their areas, to minimize the need for RFCs. Sixth,ArbCom should be willing to review the history of editors with long block logs who have been involved in infobox wars. Infobox disputes continue to divide the community. Disputes are not just cases that go to WP:ANI, Arbitration Enforcement, or Requests for Arbitration. Disputes include any question that has to be resolved by RFC rather than by discussion alone. The divisiveness of infobox cases is shown by the opposition of some editors to an infobox for one of the greatest classical composers. The RFC does not show evidence of disruptive editing or incivility, but I haven't read the prior talk page discussion. I know that some opponents of infoboxes have edited disruptively, and it was primarily but not entirely the opponents of infoboxes whose behavior made sanctions necessary. I have six thoughts about further action to reduce infobox wars. First, any WikiProject, including WP:WikiProject Classical Music should be encouraged to adopt a guideline that an infobox is the norm for C-Class articles. Second, if specific editors are problematic, the contentious topics procedure should be used to topic-ban them from infobox discussion. In general, there are a few difficult editors, some opposing infoboxes, and some supporting them, and existing remedies are available. Third, the guidelines on infoboxes should be revisited de novo. Fourth, music disputes are too common in both the areas of popular music and classical music, probably because the editors are passionate about their love of the music. Maybe editors should listen to music when angry rather than editing when angry. Fifth, as part of the de novo review of the guidelines on infoboxes, WikiProjects should be encouraged to establish guidelines for when infoboxes are in order for articles in their areas, to minimize the need for RFCs. Sixth, ArbCom should be willing to review the history of editors with long block logs who have been involved in infobox wars.
  22. Thanks for standing as a candidate for the ArbCom. You maybe be familiar with a recent Law and Social Inquiry article titled "Canceling Disputes: How Social Capital Affects the Arbitration of Disputes on Wikipedia" that was the subject of the current article on the Signpost. In addition, a previous paper from 2017 in International Sociology also examined similar trends from the ArbCom. In short, these papers argue about the existence of external factors influencing ArbCom decisions such as editor tenure, and raise concerns about canvasing among others. Are you concerned about the issues presented in the articles, or do you have any other concerns about the structure or operations of the ArbCom?
    Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 16:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not read the papers, and will read them, and comment afterwards. I think that the question has two parts. The first may be whether I agree with the papers, and the second may be what I think should be done to address the findings of the papers. I don't disagree with the findings of the papers, so the question is what should be done to address the findings. The journal paper quoted one interviewee as saying that ArbCom "operates on the basis of what is best for the encyclopedia and it does not consider legal principles". That is in fact what it should do. ArbCom cases that involve content (as opposed to admin cases) are mostly about disagreements about neutral pont of view, which is the second pillar of Wikipedia. What ArbCom needs to focus on is ensuring that the consensus editing process maintains neutral point of view, which has to be done by sanctioning editors who disrupt consensus editing. The journal paper is mostly about social capital, which relates to what is known in Wikipedia as the problem of unblockable editors. The ArbCom needs to be aware that unblockable editors, that is, editors with high social capital who disregard civility, interfere with neutral point of view. ArbCom should cancel disputes, but should do so in a way that improves neutral point of view.
  24. You seem to handle most, if not all, of the cases at DRN. Do you intend to stop doing so if elected an arbitrator? If yes, do you have an idea of who might be able to step in at DRN, or are you willing to train people? If no, are you concerned that your role at DRN might require you to recuse yourself from many cases at ArbCom? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not I am elected, more volunteers are needed at DRN. If elected, I will try to recruit and orient more volunteers. The point about recusal as an arbitrator is well taken. As a mediator, it is always one of the objectives to avoid having the case go first to WP:ANI and then to arbitration; but I am aware that I would have to recuse as an arbitrator if I had mediated the dispute.
  26. Your statements at WP:ARC have long struck me as more useful as a comment of a sitting arb than as a member of the community, except for one thing. The comments not only seem independently arrived at (good! every arb should think for themselves and exercise their judgement) but also completely independent of any conversation/discussion arbs have already had, not really addressing ideas or thoughts raised by arbs (for instance long accept/decline rationales after that position already has a majority of Arbs voting that way). If elected, how would or wouldn't your statements change? Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My statements on ArbCom case requests are intended to offer another opinion or viewpoint as to whether the arbitrators should accept a case and what its scope should be. If I am elected, I expect that I will still make similar statements, because they will be directed to the other arbitrators, and because the discussion of acceptance or non-acceptance should be as transparent for the community as possible.
  28. In your opinion, what is the single worst remedy or finding-of-fact that the Arbitration Committee has voted in support of during a case or motion that was resolved in 2022 or 2023? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After rereading the cases that the ArbCom has handled in 2021 through 2023 (I added 2021), I do not see any final decision that I consider a mistake. A decision with which I disagreed was the decision not to establish discretionary sanctions for disruption in deletion discussions in 2021 in the deletion discussions case, and then the decision not to consider defining deletion discussions as a contentious topic in the Smallcat case, which was another case about disruption of deletion discussions. I don't consider those to be mistakes so much as differences of opinion. Similarly, I disagreed with the failure to impose discretionary sanctions for tropical storms. I also disagreed with the delay in accepting some of the administrator conduct cases, but thought that the final result, a delayed desysop, was reasonable.
  30. In your opinion, what is the single most important thing that the Arbitration Committee has needed to improve upon throughout 2022 and 2023, and how will you improve upon it when you are elected to the committee? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have any quick answers to that question, but I would like to see ArbCom accept more cases that are not administrator conduct issues, because they are editor conduct issues that prevent the resolution of content disputes.
  32. what is the most important type of editor? ltbdl (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that there is one most important type of editor. Wikipedia needs, and has, a variety of types of editors, including content creators, copy-editors, and different types of gnomes. The idea that some types of editors are better than others contributes to unnecessary friction in the English Wikipedia, and is one of the main reasons why RFA is a toxic process. The idea that there is one most important type of editor is unfortunate.
  34. do you support mandatory registration for wikipedia editing? why or why not? ltbdl (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that this question is the same as whether to disallow editing with only an IP address. Disallowing unregistered editing is a perennial proposal, and so is probably more likely to be discussed than to be implemented. However, if there were an RFC to disallow IP editing, I would support it weakly. Unregistered editing is a solution in search of a problem. There is no need for it, when registered editing can be pseudonymous, and there is no requirement to provide a true name. Some unregistered editors think that IP editing is the way to preserve their privacy, which is better preserved by pseudonymous editing. The disadvantage of IP editing is that IP addresses are not static. They shift because they are managed by ISPs. This makes dialogue on talk pages difficult because a human may have shifting addresses. So it would be a good idea to require (rather than encourage) registration, although it is unlikely to be done.
  36. Would you care if an article for a kids tv show got vandalized with false information? Scoophole2021 (talk). 07:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I don't understand the question or the context. Of course we should care if any article is vandalized. The vandalism should not come to the attention of ArbCom, because administrators should block the vandals, and administrators and the community should restore the verifiable article. Of course we should oppose any vandalism.
  38. Consider the hypothetical where the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus under WP:IAR that violates WP:CONEXCEPT. The English Wikipedia community attempts to enforce that consensus but the WMF pushes back, resulting in wheel and edit warring. If an ARBCOM case was opened on this matter would you sanction editors attempting to enforce the consensus, and would you support the English Wikipedia's right to come to that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, in such a case, ArbCom should support the English Wikipedia's right to govern itself. ArbCom should not sanction editors on either side if, as appears to be true in the hypothetical case, both sides were acting in good faith. There has been a precursor case, which was the Fram case, in which ArbCom, in my view, acted appropriately in representing the English Wikipedia as self-governing.
  40. The roles of checkusers and oversighters are currently managed at the pleasure of the sitting arbitration committee. What, if any, conditions would be necessary for you to support divorcing checkuser and oversight functions from the arbitration committee, making these roles managed by the community instead? — xaosflux Talk 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see community control of Checkuser and Oversighter appointments as related to RFA reform. I see community control of Checkuser and Oversighter appointments as possibly being done via WP:RFFA, WP:Request for Functionary Appointment, a process similar to RFA or RFB. We should find some way to make RFA less hostile, and I am not sure what that way is, and then provide a similar process for the appointment of Checkusers and Oversighters.
  42. As a follow up to my previous question, do you intend to continue mediating at DRN if elected an arbitrator, or do you intend to take a step back from the front lines and move into a training role? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If elected, I will step back from active work at DRN, both so that it is not taking up time that I would owe to do ArbCom work, and because of the possibility that the dispute could go to arbitration and I would have to recurse.
  44. In reading your answers above, I was struck by your view (which you've expressed before) that I don't think that ArbCom should usually wait to hear from the accused admin before deciding whether a case should be accepted, at least if the case is strong. Several arbitrators and other editors have previously opined that ArbCom sometimes waits too long to open this type of case, especially if it appears the admin is deliberately not responding; but your view seems to be that the admin need not be afforded any reasonable time to respond at all. In my experience, allowing "the accused admin" (like anyone else who is the subject of a case request) a fair opportunity to respond often results in useful feedback, ranging from an explanation of or relevant context for the disputed action, to a commitment not to repeat the contested action, or sometimes a resignation that moots the need for a case. It also allows time for other community members with relevant information or viewpoints to weigh in, as you yourself have done frequently. Would you please further explain or clarify your thinking on this point? Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps my complaints about waiting for a statement from the admin have been a little stronger than I intended. I have probably been the most outspoken in criticizing the ArbCom for waiting a long time to open a case when it appeared that the administrator was being evasive. I have thought about the issue of the timing of the opening of admin cases in response to this question, and have a few thoughts. First, a few cases of admin conduct are so blatant if properly stated that the opportunity to explain or resign should be within the framework of the case. However, I recognize that other cases are less obvious, and that I may have seemed to be calling for a rush to justice. I meant to be calling for the ArbCom to demand a timely response. Second, since these admin cases unfortunately recur, ArbCom should have a semi-standard framework for dealing with them. ArbCom should have a time threshold for how long to wait for an explanation, maybe three or four days. Third, I had not been thinking about the work that is done by the arbs and clerks in opening a case. So maybe there should be an intermediate status for cases such as Pending to give the admin a signal that they really need to provide a statement. My main concern has been that simply waiting for an explanation from the admin looks, to some editors in the community, like the admins on the ArbCom are allowing admins to evade accountability. So I think it is important for the ArbCom to be seen as requiring accountability, possibly by requiring a response within a specified number of days. By the way, I am satisfied with the outcome of the cases in which I criticized the ArbCom for being slow to act.
  46. You may have a unique perspective on this, given your work in dispute resolution: At what point does WP:STONEWALLING escalate beyond just a content dispute into disruptive behavior that is appropriate for ANI or AE to act on? Sennalen (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My experience is that, when content disputes cannot be resolved by discussion and compromise, they should be resolved by RFC. Stonewalling is conduct which prevents or tries to prevent the development of an RFC, such as by frivolous arguing over efforts to word the RFC, et cetera. If an editor tries to prevent the RFC from going forward, that is disruption, and, as you say, should be reported to WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement.
  48. My Guide to Arbitration contains observations from my two terms an an arb and three stints as a clerk. I attempted to capture what tends to happen in a case rather than what should happen. Which observation do you disagree with the most and why? --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 07:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The wording of this question is interesting, because it asks what I disagree with. There are two ways to interpret this question. First, what do I think is incorrect as a description of how arbitration works? Second, what do I think is incorrect as a description of how arbitration should work? I am not going to disagree as to how it works. So the question is what do I disagree with about how it should work. This question is similar to the question about the journal paper. I agree that ArbCom does not (usually) follow legal rules, and should not try too hard to follow legal rules. ArbCom should focus on ensuring that neutral point of view can be maintained. The Arbitration Guide doesn't mention neutral point of view, and the fact that it doesn't is more a criticism of the arbitration process than of the guide.
  50. I have recently finished a rewrite of Genghis Khan. What is the worst problem with the article at this revision, and why? Please reference relevant policies or guidelines. I am asking this question to candidates whose ability to evaluate/write content I am not immediately convinced by. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that you have made a lot of improvements to the article. I don't see any obvious problems with the article, and will take another more detailed look within a week.
  52. Why did you think it was appropriate for you to (offer to) reclose the Required disclosure for admin paid advising RFC after having expressed support for the original close that was overturned with near unanimous consensus?
    Oops. Ugh. That was a mistake on my part. Thank you for calling my attention to that mistake. I was trying too hard to respond to a request to close the case that I shouldn't have considered.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Candidates/Robert_McClenon/Questions&oldid=1200062549"