Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Beeblebrox

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beeblebrox[edit]

Hello all. I go by Beeblebrox, and have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2007. I was made an administrator in 2009 and an oversighter in 2010. When I ran at RFB earlier this year many users commented that I was not "boring" enough to be a crat. Several of them suggested that the same qualities that made me unsuitable for that role would be valued qualities in an arbitrator, specifically willingness to take on tough issues and to find innovative solutions to resolve them. After much thought on the issue have decided they may have been right and am therefore putting myself forward to serve on the committee. As an oversighter I have already identified myself to the foundation. I have never used any other account to edit Wikipedia, although I did make a few edits as an IP before registering an account. Thanks for your consideration.

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

General questions[edit]

  1. Skills and experience:
    a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
    I have always been known for being able to make peace and avoid pointless fighting amongst my co workers and friends. This is significantly more challenging in an anonymous, text-only environment, which is of course why we have an entire committee for such matters. I do also have a very low tolerance for chronic disruption and am known on-wiki for being willing to make blocks that other admins might feel less comfortable with, such as users with competence issues. Nobody likes blocking such users, but sometimes it must be done to protect the project from their incompetence. I have also dealt with long term abusers, many of which are particularly unpleasant/annoying.
  1. b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.
    Over the last several months I have been one of the active admins at WP:ANRFC and have closed a wide variety of contentious discussions, including user RFCs, usually considered a "last stop" before ArbCom. While I have commented on several case requests I have never been directly involved in an actual case before ArbCom.
  1. Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings, or with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions? What factors might generally influence you?
    I would say it depends entirely on the situation. Just as with lower forms of dispute resolution, each case must be taken on its own merits. However I have never been one to shy away from the idea that users who consistently cause more problems than they solve need to be shown the door.
  1. ArbCom Practices:
    a) ArbCom and policies:
    i) ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
    ArbCom should absolutely not be in the business of actively modifying site policies. That is not the role of the committee and it is not what the community expects of them. In general they should also not be taking a position as a group on the appropriateness of specific policies as they could unduly influence the outcome of community discussion, but that seems unlikely anyway. However it is entirely appropriate for them to comment on the effectiveness and clarity of policies. Unclear or poorly enforced policies are part of the reason some disputes make it to ArbCom in the first place, and if a particular policy seems to be creating problems the community should be informed of the issue and asked to look into modifying the policy to make it more effective.
  1. ii) 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?
    The pillars reflect the founding ideals and principles of this project and are important. However, as the fifth pillar tell us they are as open to interpretation as anything else and are not ironclad rules. I could see the usefulness of reminding participants of the pillars when issuing a decision. It can serve to remind everyone involved of what the point of this project actually is. which persons involved in protracted disputes often lose sight of.
  1. iii) 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?
    . ArbCom deals with behavior, and if a user or group of users are exhibiting problematic behavior that the community at large is unable to curb it is appropriate for ArbCom to limit the problematic behaviors through whatever means called for by the specific situation. The possibility of real harm to real people should always be considered when dealing with such content, although that concern should be tempered by respect for our own sourcing policies.
  1. b) Article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.
    ArbCom can help in as far as it can restrict or remove users who make harmonious editing difficult or impossible, and it can place general sanctions to restrict any further disruptive behavior. If the community needs and desires a binding process for resolving content only disputes, they need to either create that process or explicitly empower ArbCom to do so. ArbCom cannot and should not be creating new processes for dispute resolution without a clear mandate.
  1. c) ArbCom and motions:
    i) 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.
    Motions are for less complicated cases that do not require weeks of discussion. Amendments to previous discussions, clarifications, and other simpler matters where there is likely to be less disagreement within the committee are all things that can be handled by motion. Most ban appeals could also be handled by motion but I could see exceptions to that cropping up. Basically, anything that does not require a prolonged, nuanced statement to resolve.
  1. ii) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
    Any very involved case or case where there is significant disagreement within the committee should probably not be resolved by motion. I don't know that I could define the distinction any more clearly than that. I don't think the community should ever be overruled by ArbCom unless there is sensitive confidential information involved that cannot be revealed to the broader community. I imagine such a scenario is an arbitrators worst nightmare as it would be more or less impossible to clearly explain to the community how the committee arrived at its decision. As to simply stepping in to a situation without so much as a request for a case, that seems unlikely to me in the current environment but it is not outside the realm of possibility. An arb could recuse themselves and turn around and request the case themselves, but there would have to be very compelling reasons to do so.
  1. iii) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2012 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.
    Since I am not intimately familiar with any of these cases it would take considerable research to come to an informed, responsible opinion on any individual motion. I would need unrestricted access to all relevant materials, including any discussions on mailing lists, etc. As such I do not intend to provide direct replies to any question which asks me to second guess a previous decision without being in full possession of the facts.
  1. d) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
    i) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
    Let's say I don't think they should be prohibited from doing so. But such information should only be retained if there is compelling reason to believe it will be germane again in the future, and it should be kept in a more secure location than a mailing list that dozens of people who have no business viewing it have access to.
  1. ii) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
    How long it should be kept is dependent on how long it is likely to be useful. Access should be strictly limited to current arbitrators only and they should decide amongst themselves if there is information in there that is outdated or no longer likely to be useful.
  1. iii) 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?
    iv) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
    What the did wrong before the leak was to leave all that sensitive information permanently sitting around where anyone who had ever served on ArbCom could just go have a look. I'm not sure whether that was out of naïveté or simply a failure to think about it but the result is the same. There was a huge hole in the security of that information. It is my understanding that all such material that is older has now been deleted and that former arbs no longer have access to the list. One can't place blame solely on the current arbs, apparently none of their predecessors or anyone at the WMF ever thought to do anything about it either until it was too late.
  1. v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
    I don't see any compelling reason to "out" myself, but if at some point the community made it clear they expected that from arbs I would have no problem doing it.
  1. vi) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them? To what extent, if any, does the Community have a right to see Arbitration evidence and statements?
    Most evidence should be freely available to everyone, involved or not. However checkuser data or any material properly suppressed in accordance with e oversight policy cannot be shared. The community needs to understand that the privacy policy protects them too. When I see demands for access to such material I wonder how that person would feel if someone wanted to see what checkuser data could be found about them, or if they would want an oversighted edit that mentioned their real name, where they live, how many kids they have, etc revealed to all because ArbCom looked at it when reviewing a case. We shouldn't and actually can't work like that. emails are another troublesome area. most people have a seasonable expectation that the content of emails will not be shared. This is a double edged sword as people sometimes say things in emails that are very damning, because they know full well that emails are considered private. I think it is ok for users to share such emails with the committee so that they may review them, but they should not be shared publicly. Anyone who is the subject of active arbitration should normally have some avenue of rebuttal to witness statements against them. The only exception I could see to that would be a user whose rebuttals consisted of obscene tirades. In such a case I imagine they would just be blocked and have their talk page and email revoked, mooting whatever portions of the case pertained to them.
  1. e) 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?
    Before I answer that I would just like to mention that I am putting myself forward to serve based on my knowledge and experience with Wikipedia not Latin. I find it extremely pretentious to just drop a Latin phrase into a question and expect that everyone, both candidate and voter, would know what it refers to. Even more obnoxious in this case because stare decisis redirects to the perfectly easy to understand English word "precedent."
    And now for my actual reply. While previous decisions can be extremely useful for suggesting a course of action they are not and should not be binding. Per WP:CCC, this project is constantly evolving and ArbCom is as dynamic as any other part of it and should not be hamstrung by being beholden to the decisions of past committees.
  1. Division of responsibilities:
    a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
    b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
    A serious problem that has come up multiple times recently is how to deal with prolific content contributors who are regularly rude and nasty to other users, and also how to deal with the cowboy admins who rush to block or unblock such users again and again. My personal feeling is that the community (or at least certain members of it) is making an error by repeatedly bringing these issues to ANI. That forum is ill-equipped to handle complex cases. ArbCom often refuses to hear cases related to specific users unless a user RFC has been attempted. While user RFCs often end in failure I do think it is a legitimate avenue that should be explored before asking ArbCom to intervene. So, it's not that I think the community can't handle such cases, but currently it is not doing a good job because the wrong forum is being used. It involves a bit more work to file an RFC than to just throw open a "please block this person" discussion at ANI, but in the long run it is more likely to lead to a lasting solution to the issue and less likely to generate wheel warring and other drama. If the RFC fails to resolve the issue then it is time for ArbCom to act on it.
  1. Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
    a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
    Yes, there is a problem with civil POV pushers. Actually I don't care for that term as POV pushing is an inherently rude thing to be doing on the first place. Refraining from nasty personal attacks and the other behaviors that cause "incivil" POV pushers to be sanctioned may help such a person keep it up a bit longer, but it should not and cannot be a free pass to be allowed to slant content. If a user cannot accept that their view is not the only way of looking at something they need to go start a blog because Wikipedia is not the place for them. If they lack the self control to restrict themselves the committee has both the right and the responsibility to remove them from the topic area.
    b) "Factionalism" 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?
    Factionalism is a problem in some areas. Feeling like you are on a particular side leads to a battleground mentality and that never leads to anything good in a project that is supposed to be based on collaboration. Whenever I see anyone throwing the term "deletionist" around I wince. I think such users are by and large a myth (with a few notable exceptions) and that most people who nominate things for deletion are doing so out of a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia, not out of a desire to destroy someone else's work. And now we have the advent of a "political party" that intends to create a faction within the Arbitration Committee itself. I am relieved that that misguided idea seems to have failed to have the desired influence in this process.
  1. As to what the committee should do when confronted with evidence that factions are part of a content dispute, it should do whatever is needed to break up those factions and to limit their ability to influence content. This is not a war and we are not in an army. Anyone who thinks like that is going to have a bad time here and is going to make a lot of other users miserable on their way out. If you can't work cooperatively you can't work on content building, that is just the nature of the beast.
  1. c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
    Whenever a long-term user suddenly retires there are segments of the community that will point to it as a sign that the project is doomed. I wonder if these people have been involved in any other kind of organization at all. People come and go from a group this size all the time. What is unfortunate is that many of these long term users find some minor incident to use as a flimsy pretext for their departure. More often than not they are really just not generally enjoying WP anymore and need to move on. That is a very human thing and there is nothing wrong with it but Wikipedia can be addictive so some folks seem to feel a need to have a flame out before they can retire and some others feel the need to use such incidents in an alarmist fashion. In short, retaining editors is important but retirements should not be seen as signs that the sky is falling. Yes, some tasks do not get done. This is not because of a shortage of users, it is because there are some things that very few people care about, be they obscure articles or obscure WP processes that require an admin. AFD and speedies has very rarely gotten backlogged lately, but CFD and RFD regularly have items that sit untouched for weeks on end. RFAs get closed on time, while RFCs on the content of television articles or disputes over what kind of dashes to use sit open for months. That's not a lack of available users it is a lack of interest.
  1. Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
  2. 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]

Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question:
#:A:

Questions from Rschen7754[edit]

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. In past years, I have gone strictly based on points, as I was not familiar with candidates; that is no longer true. This year, I reserve the right to deviate from this past practice, but missing answers will still be noted. 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, and 2011; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

  1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
    A:Generally it should not take three months to resolve a case. By the time dispute reaches ArbCom it is likely there are already parties who have walked away in disgust, the committee should do what it can to keep issues moving forward but they are only human like the rest of us (no, really, I met several of them earlier this year and they didn't have devil horns or extra fingers or anything) and sometimes real life might get in the way.
  2. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?
    A:To co-ordinate the improvement of a specific area of Wikipedia. Many of them fail to do so, but I always enjoy seeing one succeed at it.
  1. 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:There are several issues with some types of long term contributors. Some of those issues are:
    • Prolific content contributors who believe their efforts grant them a free pass to be rude and condescending
    • Users who have spent so much time battling socks that they now suspect (and openly accuse) any and all IP users of socking
    • Users who attempt to permanently WP:OWN articles they created or expanded
    There are more but these are some of the most common. As to what is to be done about it, neither the community at large nor ArbCom seems to have a clear idea. The rude but prolific contributor is the most problematic of these. Does the damage caused by their nastiness outweigh the benefits of their content work? Does one even have any bearing on the other or should we examine them in isolation? These are issues which the community has thus far failed to resolve. As ArbCom is supposed to reflect what the community wants they have been similarly unable to come to a resolution when such cases have been brought before them. I consider coming up with innovative solutions to seemingly intractable problems one of my strong points but this one is a tough nut to crack. If I were to become an Arb and such a case was presented to the committee I would urge my fellow arbs to work towards the type of "backbreaking" solution that ArbCom is there to provide, but exactly what it would be is hard to say.
  1. Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?
    A:If it became clear that everyone thinks I suck at it, if I thought I sucked at it, or if my real life circumstances were to change and I was no longer able to actively particpate on a regular basis.
  1. 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?
    A:In most cases that reach the level of arbitration there is more than one user who is exhibiting poor behavior, but there is often one in particualr who stands out as the most disruptive. Sanctions on users should not be based on "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" but should be tailored to effectively resolve the issues that led to dispute. That may mean site banning the worst of the lot and topic banning everybody else, or it may mean topic banning a few users and imposing general sanctions that apply to anyone editing the disputed content. Or it may even mean just admonishing everyone involved and putting the disputed contetn under a 1RR restriction. Often the knowledge of editing restrictions can help in loved users see the forest through the trees, and if it does not the escalating blocks they will receive certainly should. Sanctions are tools for calming disruptive editing, not weapons to punish wrongdoers.
  1. ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?
    A:My absolute favorite essay about Wikipedia is User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior. See number 37. Despite surviving the gauntlet at RFA, it turns out that most admins are actually fairly normal, mortal human beings. They can and do make mistakes. Sometimes they make the same mistake over and over again and nobody can convince them they are making a mistake. So, sure, gray area abounds. In cases of severe repeated abuse of admin powers in a short span of time or a reasonable belief that an account may have been compromised, it is appropriate for ArbCom to seek emergency desysopping without anyone outside the committee requesting it.
  1. What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?
    A:ArbCom has no jurisdiction outside of en.wp. However, a users behavior on other WMF sites can at least be observed and considered. If there is evidence that the behavior that has led ArbCom to scrutinize the, here is also present on multiple other WMF sites it may be appropriate to contact the stewards and inform them of it. As the WMF forbids the sharing of deleted material with non-admins it is fairly easy to imagine a circumstance where there may be private evidence, and of course if one of the accusations is outing or libel publicly displaying that material would aggravate the situation the committee was supposed to be resolving as well as breaching the agreement all functionaries enter into with the Foundation.
  1. What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?
    A:That sucks for him. The gist of it seems to be that all his accounts were "daisy chained" together so once the hackers breached one they had open doors to all the others. I don't do that. Although I do edit primarily from an iPad these days it is not connected to any "clouds" even though Aple keeps trying to get me to make it so.
  1. If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
    A:Yes, of course.


Thank you. Rschen7754 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Questions from AlexandrDmitri[edit]

  1. How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?
    A:It would be best if they were replaced. If they cannot participate for more than three months straight they aren't really on the committee. However, given the amount of effort that goes into ArbCom elections it seems like a lot of hassle to organize a special election to fill a single vacancy. Perhaps the possibility of allowing the committee to appoint alternates out of the runners-up from the general election is something that should be explored, but the community would need to empower the committee to do that.
  1. Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team: these were the initial internal teams set up by the Arbitration Committee. Whilst this division has now evolved, which part of in the internal operations of the committee do you feel you could bring expertise to, and why?
    A:I'd like to think I am a tough but fair administrator, so ban appeals (which also includes blocked users without talk page access) would be an area where I could be of some help. As the owner and manager of a people-oriented small business in real life I am experienced at organizing groups and getting them moving toward a common goal, I would think that would translate over well into case management when coupled with my experience here on WP. I already deal with a fair bit of incoming mail for oversight so I would think I could pitch on there as well easily enough. The technical stuff is admittedly my weak point, I am a people person not a programmer.

Questions from Jayen466[edit]

  1. Earlier this year, you said about Meta, Warning to all users who are not "regulars" here at Meta: Be aware that there is a strong double standard at play on this website, with the regulars, especially administrators, being a priveleged class that can pretty much do whatever it wants as long as no foul language is involved. Then there's you. You can't do shit. You are an unwelcome interloper and the best you can expect is to be ignored, but if you dare point out the rampant hypocrisy here you will probably be blocked by these abusive administrators. Luckily for me Meta has pretty much zero influence over my work at the English Wikipedia, but you may not be so lucky, so be careful to act like a subservient little peon who doesn't want to rock the boat or you may be kicked off this site. You have also referred to Meta admins as "abusive cowards". I sometimes see people say much the same about Wikipedia and Wikipedia admins. Do they have a point, and are there similarities between their situation here in Wikipedia, and yours over in Meta?
    A:There are certainly individual situations here where a single admin here runs off the rails and acts abusively. The difference is that the other admins here are willing and able to call out one of their own, at least in cases of clear-cut abuse of administrative status. Things never would have gone as far over here as they did over there back in February and March, other admins would have stepped in at some point and put a stop to the abuses that were going on. Admins here don't get to get away with trolling other users, and if they ask for their tools to be revoked they don't have to threaten to turn vandal to get somebody to actually do it.

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee[edit]

  1. Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end.

    There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally.

    How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?

    A:Boldness is a fine quality in an administrator so long as they are not convinced that they are infallible. In some cases such as 3RR or legal threats, decisive action is exactly what is called for. In other cases such as indef blocking long-term contributors or major changes in the way policies are interpreted community is the correct option. We have admins so that we don't have to have a week long discussion of every little thing, but unfortunately some admins do have a tendency to ignore the community and be "cowboy admins." That tendency needs to be discouraged as it creates a lot of drama and not a lot of improvement to the project.
As to your second point, it saddens me to see how many users these days seem to feel that slavish obedience to the rules is the only way. Any administrator who is actually good at their job knows that it is not at all uncommon to ignore a rule if it is keeping them from doing what is best for Wikipedia.


  1. What does "Civility" mean to you?
    A:To me it means pretty much what the five pillars says it means: we should act in a generally respectful manner. Where we run into trouble again and again is when we try to specifically define what that means. Some would have us go so far as to prohibit saying "I think this idea is stupid" or other mild criticisms such as that. If you are going to participate in a collaborative project you need to be able to accept criticism and accept that some of your ideas may be stupid. We all have a stupid idea once in a while, and I for one appreciate honest opinions and would not have those criticizing my idea be held to the standards of language on expects in a kindergarten. That doesn't mean that we should be overtly rude and nasty to one another or constantly belittle other users, but it also doesn't mean that a user who expresses their honest opinion should be endlessly berated by self-appointed civility police. Both are equally offensive. Somewhere in between is a truly civilized environment where users speak their minds but are not deliberately nasty about it. How do we get there? Good question, but in my opinion it is a question for the community, not ArbCom, to resolve or at least improve.

Question from SirFozzie[edit]

  1. First off, thank you for running. My question is: How does working as an oversighter, which can be a primarily solo effort but has a team based component (when reviewing borderline or possibly controversial oversights) assist in what would be required to be an effective arbitrator? SirFozzie (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A:I would hope and expect that ArbCom has the same sort of civil, easygoing discussions on their mailing list as we do on the oversight and functionaries lists. These discussions, when needed, are focussed on arriving at an internal consensus, not at scoring points on one another or petty bickering. For oversighters they are an essential component as the vast majority of what we do cannot be discussed openly. I would assume they play a similarly critical role in any ArbCom case involving privacy issues, outing, or other discussions best held in private.
Update:Obviously I was very wrong to assume the discussions on the ArbCom list are anywhere near as "easygoing" as the functionaries list generally is. Let's say I'd like to move it in that direction. The committee is supposed to work toward resolving disputes, not causing them.

Questions from The Devil's Advocate[edit]

  1. As an Arbitrator you will have to handle appeals from banned editors and may, as in some recent cases, have to weigh in on how to handle edits by banned editors. From looking over your opinions on this matter, it seems you have a strong position on how to treat banned editors. Do you believe you can be sufficiently objective when dealing with issues regarding banned editors?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A:I don't believe we should wink at banned users evading their bans and I do strongly believe that WP:RBI is the best practice when dealing with socks of banned users. That does not mean I do not believe in second chances for users who are willing and able to accept their ban and have the self control to avoid socking. I am a long time supporter of WP:OFFER unblocks and am the primary author of WP:ROPE, so I think in fact I have a fairly balanced and grounded perspective on blocked or banned users and would be able to look at each appeal on its own merits.

Questions from User:My very best wishes[edit]

For follow-up comments and questions, see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Beeblebrox/Questions § Moved_comments_from_.23Questions_from_User:My_very_best_wishes.

Your request for bureaucratship was not approved. Do you think that at least some criticism was reasonable? If so, what exactly did you learn and would like to improve? My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my candiddate statement, I actually got some very good feedback from some of the opposers there. It was made clear to me that large portions of the community are less concerned about a record of good judgement and decisive action and more concerned that crats follow "the letter of the law" not only when taking crat actions, but all the time. They want them to do exactly what is required of them by policy or consensus and nothing more. In the end I have to agree that I am not suited for that role, that's just not my style and I do not intend to run at RFB again.
An important role of arbitrators is to help other contributors to understand the process and policies. For example, it seems to me that members of "WikiProject_ArbCom_Reform_Party" are obviously acting in a good faith, even if they are wrong. Do not you think that the most appropriate reaction would be to respectfully talk with other contributors as two other candidates did, rather than making a mockery of people as you did [1] ? My very best wishes (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I already addressed this specific point in my answer to the question below this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Count Iblis[edit]

From what I can tell from your reaction to some constructive efforts to reform the ArbCom system, and your actions as an Admin, you seem to think that ArbCom has till now done a good job. Is it e.g. your opinion that the banning of Fae, the desysopping of Cirt were correct decisions? Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me at "constructive efforts". Create a project to increase factionalism on Wikipedia? It struck me as such a ridiculous and terrible idea but from previous experience with you I knew the futility of trying to point out the obvious flaws in your grandiose schemes to fix all of Wikipedia's problems yourself, so I reacted with humor instead of directly engaging you. That is, up until you chose to open an RFC to recruit new members. How you could see that as adding up to some sort of blanket endorsement of everything ArbCom has ever done is a bit obscure to me.

Question from User:Casliber[edit]

I've written some notes here on arbitration. My question is about the next time the committee gets a complex dispute such as Abortion or Climate Change, where arguments extend to misuse of sources as well as problematic behaviour. Do you see the role as strictly examining problematic behaviour or do you see the need to examine how antagonists are working within our content policies. If you don't see a role of examining how contributors are abiding by our content policies, how do you propose they do get examined? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that misrepresenting or otherwise misusing sources is a behavioral problem and very much something ArbCom should be willing to examine when taking a case. Users sometimes misrepresent or "spin" what is in a source to suit their own desires. Whether they are willing to admit as much to themselves or not, that is a form of lying and not something any of us should turn a blind eye to. The two topics you mention are certainly among the most contentious areas that do not involve nationalism or ethnicity. They are also unfortunately "political footballs" that American politicians like to kick around during election season, which is now nearly perpetual, so these are not problems we can count on to resolve themselves. Users who repeatedly distort or misrepresent what is said by sources should be sanctioned appropriately. Some possibilities would be 1RR, requiring them to submit any future changes on the talk page before making them, or in more severe cases topic banning or site banning if the problem is not limited to a specific area.

Question from User:Bwilkins[edit]

I appreciate you bringing up the issues surrounding Ivory Coast. As you're aware, decisions made by ArbCom regularly become jurisprudence across the entire English Wikipedia. This includes decisions that are outright bad or those that are simply wrong. The repurcussions can be astronomical. You state above that "it had been fairly conclusively demonstrated that "Ivory Coast" is the term most used by English language journalistic sources", which you know is diametrically opposed to the facts in the Requested Move - no such conclusive demonstration has ever been made. Since that "decision" - which you're now subjecting to revisionism both in the arguments and your close - there has been a wholesale push to remove "Cote d'Ivoire" from all titles related to that country on the English Wikipedia. With an understanding of how a poorly-made decision can affect the entire project, how will you protect the project as a whole from future situations at the ArbCom level, both when making decisions, and when declining to take cases (which ArbComm does both - and both become jurisprudence) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


As I have stated before I believe it was the wrong discussion to begin with and that a more comprehensive discussion of all Ivorian article titles would have been a better idea. Your comments seem to indicate as much as well, as this is apparently still being argued about. As I have also stated before it is somewhat surprising that a six-year-long naming dispute somehow has not made it to the level of an ArbCom case yet. My best guess at why that is is that for once the arguments are not based on nationalism or prejudice and so, while the dispute has raged on and on, it has not been particularly nasty when compared with similar issues elsewhere. Sadly, there is a tendency to assume some sort of precedent and use it to try and force further changes even when, as is the case here, no precedent was intended nor could it be reasonably implied that the close was some sort of mandate to rename even one single article other than the main Ivory Coast article.
The problems that have resulted from my poor choice of words when writing that closing have been a learning experience for me. When doing closes now I often remind myself to write succinctly and to only say what needs to be said so that participants will understand how the close was arrived at and nothing more. ArbCom decisions, with their much more far-reaching consequences, should be tightly worded and reviewed by the committee before being posted so that they can look for loopholes that the author may have missed or ambiguities in the wording. The level of activity at the requests for clarification page suggests this is not always the case, and of course we have very recently seen some Arb drama due to a poorly worded decision. Watching that episode unfold was also a learning experience for me. A slight vagueness in the wording of a restriction and a thoughtless comment from an arb led to a forest fire of arguments all over the site, from ArbCom to CFD, MFD, ANI, and so on. That never should have happened and I hope all current arbs and prospective new arbs are now cognizant of the fact that anything they say in their role as an Arb is important and should be carefully considered before hitting the save button.

Questions from Cunard[edit]

For follow-up comments and questions, see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Beeblebrox/Questions § Moved_comments_from_.23Questions_from_Cunard.

Please do not feel the need to answer all my questions. I've listed the topics that I'm most interested in; see my note below. The other questions can be left unanswered if you don't have the time or inclination to answer all the questions. Cunard (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closes
Anchor:
  1. Are you aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? If you are interested in helping the community assess the consensus at RfCs and other discussions, please consider watchlisting it. If not, then no worries.
As a matter of fact I closed three items listed there just today. I am assuming this is a generic question you are asking of all candidates as you have repeatedly thanked me for the many closes I have done there.
  1. There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review regarding review of closes of requests for comment.

    Part of the discussion is about whether admins can summarily overturn non-admin closes of RfCs. Suppose that a non-admin editor in good standing closes an RfC. The non-admin was not involved in the discussion and has not previously expressed an opinion about the topic. An editor disagrees with the close and requests admin review. Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?

    Arguments for: (i) the safeguard is necessary in case the closer is inexperienced, (ii) having been through an RfA, admins are entrusted by the community to assess the consensus in discussions, and (iii) this would parallel other processes. Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions states, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure states, "All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin; but if the conditions listed above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure."

    Arguments against: (i) admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD (which in the case of deletion requires the admin flag), (ii) non-admins who have spent hours reading a discussion and summarizing the consensus should be given more respect, and (iii) summarily overturning closes discourages non-admins from closing RfCs, which will aggravate the perpetually backlogged Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. A large number of the closers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4 are non-admins.

    Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?

Nobody should be summarily overturning anyone else's good faith closing of any discussion unless there was an obvious error. It is not required that users closing RFCs be admins, nor should it be. I do believe that AFDs and unblock requests should be reviewed by admins only, but content RFCs are another matter. To make matters worse, we are starting to see requests there for three admins to close discussions. Only a few RFCs require something like that, such as wide ranging policy changes, the introduction of new features, and other similarly complicated issues.
  1. The second question asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review was: "Can an RFC closure be overturned by consensus at WP:AN?"

    Deletion discussions have the review process Wikipedia:Deletion review, and move discussions have the review process Wikipedia:Move review. There is currently no formal process for reviewing RfC closes. Recently several RfC closes have been contested. See "So what happens with disputed closes", the closing comment here ("The more complex question that emerged about who can close and/or reopen RfCs does not seem to have been answered but it's my judgement that it's not going to be satisfactorily answered in this forum."), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 5#Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati#RFC on image inclusion, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#NAC, supervote and vote counting for several recent examples.

    Do you agree or disagree that an RfC can be overturned by community consensus at WP:AN? Describe how you believe an RfC close review should be like in terms of its format: Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Move review, or something else.

Yes, consensus can overturn an RFC close. It can overturn just about anything. That is rather the point of using it as our primary method of decision making. I would say it should be more or less like deletion review in that it should be a discussion of whether or not the closer correctly appraised the consensus in the RFC, not a rerun of the RFC itself. That is supposedly how move review works as well but in my experience there are not enough users minding the store there to make sure that is actually what happens. Given that I suspect a separate formal process for RFC review would face similar issues and we should probably handle the few RFCs that face serious, substantive challenge by discussion at AN or some other more generalized forum.
Transparency
Anchor:
  • Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) wrote, "I would prefer if all Committee discussions were held on Wikipedia, except for those matters which do require privacy." I believe this is a position supported by many members of the community.
    1. Please explain why you agree or disagree with SilkTork's position.
    2. If you agree with SilkTork's position, describe how you will actively promote changing the Arbitration Committee's tendency to hold non-privacy-related discussions off-wiki.
    Not having ever been an arb is hard to know exactly what they discuss on or off wiki. However, I can see reason to have some discussion, even if not privacy related, on the mailing list. The reason of this is that active arbs are very high profile. It can be reasonably assumed that any statement they make on-wiki can and will be scrutinized. This may actually hamper honest, frank discussion in some situations. Don't we all have a right to choose to have certain conversations by email? That being said, the committee should always be clear and specific when explaining how and why they arrived at a decision. A statement that says " we talked about it and decided to do x" is not sufficciently transparent. Specific reasons should always be publicly presented even if portions of the conversation that led to the decision are not.
Recusals
Anchor:
  1. In several past cases, arbitrators have been asked to recuse because of prior involvement with one of the parties.

    See for example User talk:AGK/Archive/75#Agk regarding this case request.

    See also for example User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 8#Forgetting something?. Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) wrote, "I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a Committee member should recuse because someone expressed dissatisfaction with some action they made, particularly when it was over three years ago and didn't lead to any dispute. There is a thought that it wouldn't do any personal harm if I recused, and I can see that, but I don't want to set a precedent that a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them."

    Describe your criteria for recusing when a party request you to recuse.

I think it is difficult to precisely describe where the line is, but it is roughly parallel to WP:INVOLVED. Even if you do not feel an actual bias one way or another it is important to avoid even the appearance of one so that the community can trust that the decision arrived at was not predetermined by one arb unduly influencing the others. Minor disagreements like disputing an AFD close are probably not sufficient, but any more involved dispute with a particular user can and should cause the arb to recuse.
  1. Former arbitrator Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs) has a list of his biases on his user page at User:Cool Hand Luke#My biases. Please describe when you will recuse to avoid the appearance of bias. For example, you might be heavily involved in a WikiProject or Wikimedia chapter and decide to recuse when an arbitration case involves one of its members. Or you might recuse if an arbitration case relates to a particular topic area that you have heavily edited.
I suppose if somehow content related to the Kenai Peninsula were to be at the center of a case I would be obligated to recuse as I live there and my fingerprints are on most articles related to it. There are many topic areas where I have been previously involved in the context of closing RFCs, AFDs, and so forth, I would consider that administrative involvement and not indicative of an area where I should recuse, with the obvious exception of the Ivory Coast since my close there caused so much controversy. I am not particularly active in any Current WikiProjects although just this morning I agreed to help found a Frank Zappa project so anyone who ends up being active in that would probably be off limits for me as an arb.
Consensus
Anchor:
  1. How would you have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley?

    If you have a strong opinion about the topic and would have recused from closing the discussion, how would you have voted?

  2. After considering Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, would you vote to endorse, overturn, or relist the "delete" close at the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21#Jill Kelley?
  3. WP:BLP1E states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The third condition is "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Discuss how this would factor into your assessment of consensus in an AfD involving a BLP, where BLP1E is cited as an argument for deletion. Feel free to mention the Jill Kelley AfD in your answer or to discuss this generally.
  4. The policy Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus states, "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." Wikipedia:Deletion review states, "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed" (though the admin also has the discretion to relist the debate).
    (a) If "normally" is removed, there would be a conflict between the policy and deletion review practice. Why are admin decisions at XfD not treated equally to other admin actions? Do you agree or disagree with this different treatment?
    (b) How do you interpret the above policy wording with regard to block and unblock discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard?
  5. When closing an XfD or RfC, how would the number of votes for a position factor into your decision? Suppose the vote count for a non-policy-based position is significantly higher than for a policy-based position (perhaps 80% vs. 20%). Further suppose that there is substantial participation and that all of the participants are experienced editors in good-standing. Do you close as consensus in favor of the non-policy-based position, consensus in favor of the policy-based position, or no consensus? Feel free to speak generally or to use the the AfD mentioned in #1 if it is applicable.
  6. Regarding the previous question: Does the community collectively determine what the policy-based position is through their discussion at the XfD or RfC? Should the closing admin be tasked with determining the policy-based position? Or should there be a balance of the two?
  7. Would you have supported or opposed the motion that passed at the BLP deletions case request in January 2010?
Desysopping
Anchor:
  • EncycloPetey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was desysopped by the Arbitration Committee on 8 September 2012. His last edit was four hours after the arbitration case was filed 29 August 2012. At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Arbitration motion regarding User:EncycloPetey, arbitrators Hersfold (talk · contribs) and Courcelles (talk · contribs) said they would have supported an admonishment and not a desysop had EncycloPetey acknowledged his errors and pledged not to make those mistakes in the future. But because he was non-responsive for a week, the Arbitration Committee opted to desysop him.
    1. Would you have supported or opposed this motion to desysop? Would you have proposed a different motion?
    I am not intimately familiar with the case, but communication and responsiveness is expected of all administrators. If they refuse to particpate in a discussion of issues directly related to them they probably should not be an admin.
    1. In his statement, former arbitrator Carcharoth (talk · contribs) mentioned Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Proposed decision#History of the case as a similar case where an admin left in the middle of a case. He wrote, "ArbCom is not a court, but being able to build in delays for single-party arbitration cases should not be impossible (this would not apply to multi-party arbitrations about a volatile and current issue)."

      Do you agree with his position on building in delays for single-party arbitration cases? If yes, describe how would you have built in a delay for EncycloPetey.

    2. A general question about desysopping and resysopping: The Arbitration Committee desysops an administrator for misconduct after an arbitration case. After one year of active, unproblematic editing, the former administrator requests the tools back at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Do you grant this request, or do you decline it and direct the former admin to file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship?
    The committee should make it clear what the users potential path back to being an admin is when issuing the decision. From what I have seen they usually indicate that they should run at RFA again, and I think that is usually the best option. Even though the committee can remove the tools it should only be the community that grants them.
Civility case clarification request
Anchor:
Note and thank you

I have asked many questions here. If you are short on time or do not want to answer all the questions, please do not feel that you need to answer all my questions. I am most interested in your answers to #RfC closes, #Transparency, and #Civility case clarification request, so please concentrate on those questions, answer other questions on topics that interest you, and skip the rest if you want.

Thank you for running to be on the Arbitration Committee. I look forward to your answers to my questions. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question(s) from Risker[edit]

With the exception of very limited situations, the Committee renders decisions only on matters at the request of one or more members of the community. Decisions on which the Arbitration Committee holds votes are passed or failed based on majority support. At times, the members of the Committee can be divided on an appropriate course of action, and voting outcomes will sometimes be determined by only one or two votes.

How do you feel about the concept of committee solidarity, i.e. all members of the committee standing by a decision that has been made in accord with committee processes? If you are elected, will you personally be able to publicly uphold the considered decision of the Committee as a whole, even if the position you took did not receive majority support? How would you deal with a situation in which you have a strongly held position that is not supported by the Committee as a whole?

I'll look forward to reading your response. Risker (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always endeavor to respect consensus even when I do not agree with it. It's possible I would express my dissatisfaction with a decision I strongly disagreed with, but I would not actively try to undermine it or discourage appropriate enforcement of properly imposed sanctions. More likely I would simply make my opinion known, once, and be done with it. ArbCom is sometimes criticized for not being transparent enough and I do believe the community has a right to know if there is a closely contested decisions, but merely being informed of that does not in any way invalidate the decision and I don't think it is appropriate for sitting arbs to go around trash talking.

Question from SilkTork[edit]

As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which time zone (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone). SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain I am the only admin or oversighter in the Alaska Time Zone which is UTC-8/-9 depending on daylight savings time (which is a bad joke in a place where the sun is up basically all day in the summer and only a few hours in winter) I am generally online sporadically from mid-morning to late evening.

Question from Bazonka[edit]

Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee? Bazonka (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Alaska and there are only a few active Wikpedians that I am aware of up here. Even if there were more the vastness of the state makes meetups difficult and expensive. I was lucky enough to be awarded a scholarship this past year to attend Wikimania in Washington D.C. and it was an awesome experience. I met so many people I only knew as names on a screen, made some new friends as well, and learned a lot. Actually, I think you could draw a fairly straight line from that to my nomination. Meeting so many people and finding that most of them (even the arbs) are just normal people like you would meet anywhere gave me a dose of confidence and re-invigorated my zeal for participating in the community and trying to make real improvements to it, something I was a bit burned out on earlier this year. Honestly I wish we could have more face-to-face interaction. It is too easy for many of us to not really care what we say to someone who we know only as words on a screen. It is something else to actually see them as a real human being. I even met someone I had had a rather unpleasant disagreement with myself a while back and we found that in real life we got along just fine. One admin I knew even introduced to someone he had blocked and the three of us had a brief but entirely pleasant conversation. More of that kind of interaction would be a good thing, but until I can figure put how to finance it I don't see it happening much.

Question from Begoon[edit]

For follow-up comments and questions, see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Beeblebrox/Questions § Moved_comments_from_.23Question_from_Begoon.

I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all.

Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?

Well, if it was a full-on GovCom it would be making new policies as well. Luckily that is not the case. It would be nice if ArbCom could get everyone to sit down and play nice, and to agree to some voluntary compromise to resolve whatever issue brought to them our highest level of dispute resolution, but that is so often not the case because most disputes that end up getting a full case involve at least one party who is not acting reasonably and is unwilling or unable to curb the behavior that is contributing the problem. When voluntary agreement is not possible, sanctions are the only tool we have left. OS imposing them fun? No. Is preventing users from contributing something we want more of? Of course not. But sometimes it has to be done. I believe my record as an admin shows that I am not overly zealous in blocking users but that I am unwilling to call a spade a spade when clear evidence is presented.

Questions from GabeMc[edit]

For follow-up comments and questions, see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Beeblebrox/Questions § Moved_comment_from_.23Questions_from_GabeMc.
  1. Questions: 1) Do you think it's appropriate for an admin to close an RfC/RfM when said admin had previously participated in an AN/I report discussion, supporting the resulting indef-block for a highly vocal party to the mediation from which the RfC originated? 2) Assuming that a) this has in fact happened, and b) you indeed think it's inappropriate, what then would you suggest as a remedy? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A:I get the feeling this is not a hypothetical scenario, but I have no idea what actual incident it is in reference to. The question basically revolves around WP:INVOLVED. Did the admins previous comments about one of the particpants make them involved in the content dispute? Without knowing the specifics it is hard to say. It is then equally hard to say what, if anything, is an appropriate remedy. I would note that the community has usually upheld the notion that if a completely uninvolved admin could reasonably have come to the same conclusion there is not a serious problem. On the pther hand it is also important to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in such matters. Somewhere in between os the answer to your question. I take a "case-by-case" kind of approach most of the time and would want to be more fully aware of the time frame involved, the severity of the previous disagreement, etc, before even considering any sort of corrective action.
Rephrase
  1. Question: Would you close an RfC happening as part of a formal mediation when you had 3 months previously participated in an AN/I discussion and !vote in which you supported the indef-block of an especially vocal party to the same dispute that resulted in said RfM and RfC? Assuming this has happened inappropriately, what remedy would you suggest? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A:See, this is even more obviously about a specific incident, but all I am getting here is what you want me to know about it, not the full picture from all sides. Since the purpose of these questions is to determine how I would act as an arbitrator, if I were one and this was brought before the committee I would review the entire situation and wait for input from all involved parties before making any kind of decision as to what if any remedy was needed.

Question from KillerChihuahua[edit]

  1. How do you reconcile the WP:BLP policy with your actions on Marcel Diallo, where you repeatedly restored extremely negative content to not only the article but also the lead, including allegations of criminal misconduct (with absolutely no sources stating anyone had ever been arrested or any charges filed, let alone any actual court findings of said misconduct) sourced only to one questionable source at a local weekly paper, and a blog sourced to that 2-yr old (now 3-year old) editorial, as shown in the history of the page as well as the talk page archive? Have your views changed regarding BLP? Would you do this differently today? Answer any way you like, no need to reply to each part of the question individually. 13:58, 5 December 2012‎
    A:There's a lot of water under the bridge in the three years since the edits you mention. I can't say I really remeber this all that well but the edits in question were discussed on the talk page and according to my own remarks this was also noted at WP:BLPN in order to get more eyes on the subject and form a consensus., There was some really lame socking going on, most of the outright reversions were reverting those socks. I think this edit summary [2] expresses my feelings on such issues.

Question from Piotrus[edit]

  1. when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:
  2. on a related note, a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
  3. to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is too...?)
  4. do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
  5. do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate is something to applaud or criticize?

Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A full site ban is more appropriate in cases where the disruption by the user is not limited to a specific area, in instances where they are not respecting sanctions already in place, or if they have used socks in any way. As to your essay, think it reflects a lot of what I already feel, and I am known for being willing to make tough calls. There is a lot of disagreement in the community as to how to handle good content contributors who are inept or do not care about social interaction, which by definition is part of any collaborative project. The "math" as it were can be very difficult to quantify in such an equation and I believe this is one of the greatest challenges facing the project.
I don't believe incarceration is a proper metaphor for Wikipedia blocks or bans. Blocked users are kicked out not locked up. The closest thing in the real world is a restraining order, but I have often equated it to being kicked out of a bar. You might just need to go home for the night and sleep it off, or you might not be welcome back for a very long time, depends on the situation.
I am not going to respond to your last point except to say it has nothing to do with this election. You are asking for an opinion on a real world topic, not WP policy and that is not really appropriate.

Question from Martinevans123[edit]

  1. Question: "The use of four letter words by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? Thanks.
    A:Sounds like another not-so-hypothetical question. I don't know who would say something like that but no, I don't agree. I consider the use of strong language to be acceptable in some situations, it is very context-dependent. But the logic implied in such a stance is not the type of logic I tend to employ. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Beeblebrox&oldid=523260784"