Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Iridescent/Questions

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Unsure about the election process?
- Please review the election rules.
Issue with inappropriate commentary or questions?
- Please notify an election volunteer.

Arbitration Committee Election 2010 candidate: Iridescent

Questions/comments from Ncmvocalist and responses from Iridescent[edit]

If it's not inconvenient for you, I'd like it if you could respond directly under each question/comment. Thank you in advance. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Done, although you do realise I'm not Giano? – iridescent 16:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...if it's any comfort, I've embarassed myself by saying "responses from Giano" to several other candidates when I was pasting them. :S Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

Q1. In your opinion, are unblocks more harmful than blocks? Why? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, quite the opposite. If someone is unblocked wrongly, the worst that happens is the original blocking admin gets annoyed and the unblocked user then goes on to cause a problem and promptly gets blocked again. If someone is blocked wrongly, we run the risk of losing a good faith contributor. With the number of active editors already in steep decline, that's a risk we shouldn't be taking. – iridescent 16:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q 2-3 relate to the following scenario: A request for arbitration is submitted concerning an administrator who: (1) is territorial over their admin actions - refusing to permit their peers to modify their actions in any way, (2) has a history of threatening their peers with arbitration requests, and (3) appears to generally view their role on the project as a combination of cop, prosecutor, and jury (in favour of convictions via blocks) rather than the actual role that many Wikipedians expect of admins. The admin in question spends a lot of time in AE, praising and defending AC, as well as statements that you have made as an arbitrator. This request is filed at a time where AC is still the only body capable of desysopping an admin. Assume that a request for comment on user conduct has resulted in mixed responses, but the admin in question has refused to heed any requests to change his approach.

Q2. How would you deal with or respond to this situation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there was a general (not necessarily unanimous) consensus that the admin was using admin powers inappropriately, desysop if they continued to refuse to change their behaviour. Desysop/resysop ought to be used far more frequently; at the moment, despite all the "no big deal" talk, people tend to treat desysopping as the Wikipedia equivalent of branding. – iridescent 16:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q3. {placeholder}

Questions from Skomorokh[edit]

You have been a vocal critic of the civility policy, or at least a certain strain of its application by adminstrators. Do you agree that a collaborative project needs some norms to encourage healthy interaction amongst participants and if so, what principles or standards would you suggest Wikipedia adopt in this regard?
Absolutely, but I don't agree that the current system works. The spirit of WP:CIV is "create an environment in which positive contributors don't feel threatened or intimidated by each other". To my mind, too many people interpret it as "never use any word which might be offensive to anyone", or "always be polite even to people who are patently only trying to stir the pot". There's also an issue in that what is "uncivil" is culturally relative, but treated as an absolute by those who enforce it; language which would be considered friendly banter in Australia or England is considered grossly offensive swearing in the US; conversely, a phrase like Have a nice day is perfectly ordinary conversation in the US but considered patronising and offensive in much of the world. The whole focus on "civility" needs to be cut back to "was the person who wrote this genuinely trying to be offensive, and if so were they provoked". – iridescent 18:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what respects should the Arbitration Committee differ in their assessment and treatment of vested contributors as opposed to less experienced editors?
I've never been convinced by the whole "vested contributor" thing. If someone's here and trying to help, they ought to be treated with the same courtesy one would give to someone who's been here three years. We should be far less keen to block regulars, but that's because we should be far less keen to block anyone who's not actively causing a serious problem. – iridescent 18:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In non-emergency situations, what grounds of administrator misbehaviour should be sufficient for desysopping by the Committee without substantial prior dispute resolution?
Depends what you call an "emergency situation". To my mind the only times blocks and desysoppings should be imposed without warning is when the editor continuing to edit/continuing to have admin tools presents an actual risk—an admin conducting a lot of out-of-process deletions, or suspected of leaking defamatory material from deleted contributions, springs to mind. – iridescent 18:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As someone involved in selecting the election personnel last year, who is opposed to secret ballots and an interested observer in your movement from high-cabalist to quasi-retired critic and back again, I am curious as to what extent you were being serious in this comment, and the implications that might have in your decision to stand for election this year under similar circumstances. Thoughts?
Semi-serious. I don't think the election results last year were fixed—the candidates finished in roughly the order one would have predicted. If you recall the rather dubious results of the 2007 Arbcom elections, in which the candidate with the second-highest number of votes "lost", and following the vote an Arbcom member was suddenly dismissed and one of the losing candidates was given his Arbcom slot, you'll remember why I treat the results of Wikipedia ballots with a certain degree of scepticism. (Secret ballots weren't to blame there; that was back in the days of open voting.) I'm not sure I was ever a high-cabalist—I never really had much dealing with any of them back in the days when they were still an influence. – iridescent 19:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Had you been a non-recused arbitrator at the time that the Motion: re SlimVirgin was put before the Committee, what would your position have been?
In the context of the time, "give her a slap on the wrist and tell her not to do it again". I dislike the attitude that blocks enacted by Arbcom members are somehow more important than other blocks, except in those rare (and clearly marked) cases where the block has legal or undisputed policy grounds behind it. Yes, she should have discussed it with the blocking admin before overturning it, and should have been told off for that, but had the original block been made by anyone else it would never have led to all that, and the burden of proof should always rest on those who want someone blocked, not those who want someone unblocked. (That is, the default status of every editor should be "unblocked".
In Wikipedia how I'd like to see it, then yes, possibly desysopped if there was a reasonable suggestion that the problem was serious and would continue; desysopping and resysopping should be used a lot more frequently. That would only, though, be on the understanding that the same sanctions be applied in the reverse situation—that is, an admin blocking someone when there isn't an overwhelming consensus to block should also face the same sanction. – iridescent 16:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to answer these or not as you choose, no rush. I might add more later. Skomorokh 18:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Lar[edit]

Note to readers: This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2010/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and the year before and modified to fit changes in circumstance.

Notes to respondents

In some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so.
Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.
It is also Not Helpful to answer "yes, yes, no, yes" (because you are expecting people to count on their fingers which answers go with which questions...) go ahead and intersperse your answers. We'll know it was you. No need to sign each part unless you want us to know which parts you answered when.
For those of you that ran last year (or the year before, etc.), feel free to cut and paste a previous year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded so watch out for that.
Where a question overlaps one of the standard questions I have tried to note that and explain what elaboration is desired.

The questions

Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
Regarding opt-out, my preferred mechanism would be that nobody gets to opt-out altogether, since that would leave a mess of redlinks. However, article subjects should have the right to request via OTRS that their article be reduced to a bare-bones stub and locked in place. ("Don Murphy (b. 1966) is an American movie producer. He produced Natural Born Killers, Transformers and many other films.") To me, that would be a mechanism by which people who are genuinely unhappy at the content of their article could get it resolved, without leaving the mess of redlinks which outright deletion would leave behind. Obviously, this is vanishingly unlikely to happen.

Regarding opt-in, I'd err towards leniency; if someone can provide reliable sources (emphasis on "reliable") for a full length non-stub article, we may as well have it. – iridescent 19:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
See my first reply above. I'd like to see BLP default to stubbify, rather than to deletion, wherever possible. – iridescent 19:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
Yes; any IP who has a legitimate edit to make can always add it to the talkpage. "Anyone can edit" isn't Holy Writ; our purpose is to provide accurate information, not necessarily to be an experiment in open editing. – iridescent 19:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - a trial, which ended up being called WP:Pending changes instead. Please comment on the trial results as they specifically relate to the BLP problem. (there is another question about revisions generally) Would you do anything different in the actual implementation?
Flagged Protection worked so badly in terms of its implementation that it's impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions. Because it didn't work on high-traffic articles, it had to be removed from the George W. Bushes it was meant to protect. I wouldn't support any return of it unless and until the devs can come up with a system that doesn't slow the system down to a crawl; by making Huggle unusable on the affected pages it almost certainly made it easier, not harder, for problem edits to slip through. – iridescent 19:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
My head says yes, my heart says no. It's a great idea in theory, but I really don't think it will work; I very strongly suspect the result would just be an enormous and ever-growing queue of unchecked articles. We barely cope with Special:NewPages. – iridescent 19:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
Both. "Content/policy" has become a meaningless distinction in the current climate; with Jimbo effectively abdicating his policy role and not leaving any replacement structure in place, Arbcom has ended up setting policy by default. – iridescent 19:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
I think they got the balance about right, in that nobody was happy. Per my reply to the similar question in general questions, if they'd come firmly down on either side of the fence it would potentially have led to mass resignations and a firestorm of debate. There's no point having a policy on which everyone agrees, if there are only a couple of dozen people left to implement it. – iridescent 19:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
See my reply to 1(a). Obviously, that's not a decision Arbcom could ever make, or could ever push through even if it did try; it's purely a thought experiment. – iridescent 19:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this question has some overlap with #5 and #6 in the general set but goes farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? Consider the controversy around some election provisions... we had an RfC on the topic early this year, but by the election we still didn't have closure on some open questions. Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
Agree. Per my answers to the general questions, I'd ideally like to see baby-steps moves towards Arbcom hiving off many of the tasks it's acquired onto subcommittees with an ultimate aim of a complete separation of powers and Arbcom become simply a court of final appeal. I know Kelly Martin is noisily shouting about how this would be impossible, but we can't tell unless we try. Regarding SecurePoll, I quite honestly don't care; I don't think it has much of an effect on anything. – iridescent 19:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there may possibly be some overlap with #7 and #8 in the general set but it's really a different tack. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions/Pending Changes. What did you think of the trial? Should we ultimately implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?
Didn't you just ask this a couple of questions up? I wouldn't support any return of it unless and until the devs can come up with a version that works properly; the buggy and slow implementation we were given was so poorly designed it was impossible to assess its effectiveness. – iridescent 19:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
Yes. We have more than our fair share of cranks, and anonymity is a crucial bulwark. Yes, Britannica names its editors, but I imagine Britannica editors don't generally phone each other up and scream abuse at each other for making edits they didn't like. – iridescent 19:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
No, it shouldn't be changed. To my mind it's a core principle, and removing it would reduce Wikipedia to a few dozen people squabbling over the wreckage. – iridescent 19:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
Again, already answered in general questions. Except in a few special cases (child protection, serious risk to safety etc), there's no point ordering people to forget something they've already been told. – iridescent 19:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
Depends on the "elsewhere". Identifying someone who uploads photos on Commons under their real name and links back to their Wikipedia account wouldn't be unacceptable outing; identifying someone who happened to mention Wikipedia on their Facebook page and provided enough information to figure out who they were, probably would be. – iridescent 19:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from 2008 in that it's more extensive)
No, no, and no. – iridescent 19:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
There's nothing the WMF can do; the decision isn't theirs to make, it's down to the editor who has chosen to reveal identifying information. I'd support a big garish "Be careful about identifying yourself, especially if you're under 18" box on the account creation screen; we do already have a warning but it's not very noticeable. – iridescent 19:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from 2008)
What happens off-wiki is none of our business, and social pressure ("User:So-and-so is the guy who gave User:Such-and-such's real name to Hivemind!") is probably more effective than any formal measure we'd try to implement. On-wiki it depends on the circumstances; I wouldn't want a set-in-stone sanction, as people do sometimes refer to editors by their real names if they're used to talking to them that way. – iridescent 19:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
See my answer above about the logon screen. I can't see there's anything more the WMF could or should practically be doing. I don't know what other body could get involved even if they wanted to. – iridescent 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
I'm intentionally not answering this. I'm familiar (AFAIK) with all the major cases of 'real' stalking in Wikipedia's history, and they're all so different in nature that a blanket answer is impossible. – iridescent 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
This sounds heartless, but none. On a pseudonymous project, any formal system of special treatment would be far too open to abuse. The only exception I could see would be to allow oversighting of personal information, but we generally do that anyway if the person asking has a good reason for asking. – iridescent 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
Per (b), the real cases have varied so wildly in their nature that it's impossible to give a blanket answer. – iridescent 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
Using the term "stalking" to refer to reviewing contributions is misusing the term, and devalues those genuine cases of stalking we've had. Constantly going through someone's contributions can certainly be annoying, but it should be dealt with as a general case of harassment rather than under a specific 'stalking' protocol. – iridescent 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
Probably, but none of whom I'm aware. Again, unless there's something to suggest more sinister motives if it's purely relating to "being annoying on Wikipedia" it should be treated as such, albeit possibly in camera by Arbcom to avoid other people piling in and making things worse. – iridescent 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this also ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
A certain editor has been characterized as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
Depends on the nature of their problematic-ness. For someone who was banned for repeatedly adding copyright violations or false information, revert-on-sight is a good policy, and I imagine the spirit in which it was intended when it was introduced. For someone who never had a problem with their mainspace edits but was banned for "social" reasons of being too hard to work with (Ottava springs to mind), there's no reason to revert edits unless there's an obvious problem; "comment on content not the contributor" seems to be forgotten sometimes. – iridescent 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
Some conversation is better off Wikipedia than on. A lot of people who aren't active on Wikipedia (whether through choice or through bans) often have useful things to say about what problems they see here. It's sometimes easy to forget that Wikipedia is run for the benefit of the outside world, not its editors, and that most of the outside world don't want to create an account. – iridescent 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
No, n/a, I can't see any earthly reason why anyone would want to, or why anyone would want to read such a thing. – iridescent 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
Wikipedia Review has a few absolutely loathsome people, but so does reality. Most of the people there are just people with a general interest in Wikipedia and its broader impact; even when they're clearly wrong, they're often worth listening to. Wikipedia doesn't exist in a bubble, and has historically been very bad at gauging how its actions are going to be perceived in the outside world. – iridescent 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not (in each case)?
Yes, yes and yes. If people have a problem with something we do, we should be trying to engage with them and finding out if there's a way to resolve the matter amicably, not pretend the problem doesn't exist just because we don't like the site it was raised on. – iridescent 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
Yes (as you know). Skomorokh has already linked it above. I wouldn't consider tying two pseudonymous accounts together to be any form of outing (if the external account were under the person's real name while their Wikipedia account was a pseudonym I suppose it could be, but I can't imagine that ever happening). – iridescent 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
I think people are generally getting more accepting that "off wiki" doesn't necessarily mean "evil". There are still some who have the WP:BADSITE mentality, but they tend to be the old guard who remember what WR was like in the old days, when it genuinely was a den of cranks. – iridescent 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
(cutting and pasting, as Skomorokh asked an identical question above) I've never been convinced by the whole "vested contributor" thing. If someone's here and trying to help, they ought to be treated with the same courtesy one would give to someone who's been here three years. We should be far less keen to block regulars, but that's because we should be far less keen to block anyone who's not actively causing a serious problem. – iridescent 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
Sort of. There are people who tend to band together, but in my experience that's more down to shared interests rather than true factionalism, and people who agree on one thing often disagree on other things. There's nothing can done about it other than to acknowledge that it sometimes happens and make appropriate allowances; it's basic human nature. – iridescent 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
Yellow, I suppose, or maybe blue. Primary colours, anyway. Couldn't say why. – iridescent 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Says the man with the purple signature ;) Sven Manguard _Talk 22:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The purple-and-green colour scheme is a very obscure in-joke which only about three users will get. – iridescent 22:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Sven Manguard[edit]

I decided to ask these questions after reflecting on an hour long conversation over the IRC with an editor that I hold in very high regard. I intermixed her concerns with my own concerns to form this short list of general questions. Please answer them truthfully, and draw upon whatever experiences or knowledge you possess. I apologize in advance for all the questions being compound questions. Thanks in advance, sincerely, Sven Manguard _Talk

What is the greatest threat to the long term survivability or viability of Wikipedia? If the threat is currently affecting Wikipedia, what actions can be done to limit it? If the the threat is not yet affecting the project, what actions can be taken to keep it that way? What is the overall health of the project today?
A. The nosedive in the number of users, with no concurrent slowing in the rate of growth in the number of articles. {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} shows every user who has ever created an account, not who's currently active. The real statistics make grim reading; two years ago the article/editor ratio was 600:1, a year ago the article/editor ratio was 755:1, it's currently 960:1. I think Wikipedia ought to be making a concerted effort to build links with and recruit from galleries and museums; my ideal new recruits would be the people who write travel guidebooks, museum catalogs and children's nonfiction; they all understand the "absorb a lot of information and summarize the salient points in brief and neutral form". Lots more on this topic currently on my talkpage if you can stand to wade through the arguments. – iridescent 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of the project? What processes do we do well, and what processes fail? What content areas do we excel at and where do we need to improve?
A. Our greatest strength is one we don't boast about enough; that we have at least adequate coverage on a remarkable number of topics. The wave of really bad stuff sometimes hides just how good some of the content on Wikipedia currently is. In terms of weakness, virtually every internal governance process has failed; Wikipedia has degenerated into a number of tiny overlapping groups, each dominated by a few people. – iridescent 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is your view on the current level of participation in Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have enough active contributors today? Does it have too many?
A. See answer above. The level of participation is in a steep and accelerating nosedive. – iridescent 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wikipedia do a good job at retaining its active contributors? What strengths and weaknesses within the project can you point to that affect retention? Are recent high profile burnouts indicative of a problem within the project or are they unfortunate but isolated events?
A. No, we do an awful job of retention. Part of that is due to our (rightly) having higher standards, which can be off-putting to newcomers, but part of that is just the general atmosphere of unpleasantness and bullying that has crept in recently. I'm not aware of any recent "high-profile burnouts", so don't know what you're referring to there unless you can point me to what you mean. – iridescent 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that the project should prioritize on improving existing content or creating new content. Is there an ideal ratio of creation:improvement? For the purposes of this question, assume that you have complete control over where the community as a whole focuses their efforts. This is, of course, a hypothetical situation.
A. To me that's a meaningless question. Drastic content improvement is content writing. Larry Sanger has been proved right, in that Jimbo's "everyone will add a sentence to the article and eventually we'll have a complete article" model really hasn't worked; virtually every good quality article on Wikipedia is the result of one user or a small group doing a complete rewrite. – iridescent 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
A. Yes. I don't buy the "banning IPs would stop vandalism" argument; all it would do would mean a slew of single purpose accounts, and we'd lose our ability to correlate related IPs. – iridescent 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
A. Enforce a minimum length, at least for new articles. Wikipedia has way too many one-line stubs, which are on "notable" topics and hence undeletable, but would be more useful for all concerned corralled into bulleted lists. – iridescent 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom election questions from Rschen7754[edit]

Due to the changed format of this year's election questioning, I have removed all the questions that are covered by the general election questions (but please be sure to answer those thoroughly!) If you wouldn't mind answering the following brief questions that evaluate areas not covered by the general questions, that would be great!

What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?
"Competence is required" is an important concept, even though it directly conflicts with WP:AGF. There are two different interpretations of it; "competence" in terms of knowing Wikipedia's technical workings and policies, and "competence" in terms of understanding the subject in which someone is working.

In the first situation—where someone is obviously trying to help, but is messing up templates and formatting, or doesn't understand that we can't include (say) a huge chunk of the original text, or a long trivia section—WP:AGF should take precedence, and someone should take it on themselves to explain to the editor what they ought to be doing. Wikipedia doesn't have so many active editors that it can afford to lose someone who wants to help, just because they've failed to understand Wikipedia's (literally) hundreds of overlapping and sometimes contradictory policies, or don't know the details of wikitext formatting (it's easy to forget just how counter-intuitive Mediawiki is, especially for the generation who grew up post-WYSIWYG who aren't used to formatting codes in body text). If someone has had all this explained to them but still refuses to follow Wikipedia's formatting and conventions, eventually it ought to be treated as intentional disruption and the editor blocked for such.

In the second situation—where someone lacks sufficient knowledge of the subject on which they're writing—WP:AGF has a limit. Wikipedia does have a problem with people who've read one book on a subject and insist the article reflect that book even though the book may represent a fringe view, or who insist an article include facts which are demonstrably untrue. In the past "this is a content dispute" has been used as a get-out clause by too many people as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility, even in cases when one side in the dispute is clearly and demonstrably incorrect, and this has led to a lot of problems festering. If the consensus is overwhelmingly against a particular view but one person insists on including it, then eventually it becomes disruption and if the editor is unwilling to compromise then they'll need to be blocked to prevent the damage they cause by tying up other people arguing. Except in the worst cases I don't think it's something Arbcom should be getting involved in; generally, an article on which this kind of problem is happening should be brought to the attention of the relevant WikiProject(s), who are likely to be the people best qualified to understand the dispute and to reach a consensus on what should be included.

I agree absolutely with "Wikipedia is not therapy". If someone has behavioural issues which are affecting the project, they should be treated no differently from any other user causing that kind of disruption. The only difference in how I think an editor causing disruption due to psychiatric issues should be treated, is that provided they acknowledge the problems (either in public or private, as appropriate), then allowance can be made for their actions, provided they understand why it was unacceptable and are at least making a good-faith effort to minimise the impact. Wikipedia does have a (legally defined) purpose and everything that happens here needs ultimately to be judged in terms of its effect on that purpose; if a user's mental problems are detracting from "collecting, developing and disseminating educational content" and efforts to reduce this disruption have failed, then blocking/banning is correct regardless of how callous it might seem. – iridescent 11:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?
Depends on the circumstances. In general, I think members of a project ought to be the ultimate arbiters of the style guide for articles falling into that project's remit; they're likely to have a better understanding of what would be most effective than the authors of WP:MOS. If a project wants a particular style of formatting that's so at odds with the MOS standard that it makes their articles look incongruous to readers, or makes their articles difficult to understand and navigate for readers used to Wikipedia's standard layout—or when an article falls into two projects and the projects disagree on formatting style—then the vanilla MOS standard ought to be the one used.

In general, formatting and layout shouldn't be coming as far as the Arbcom level, though. If a dispute over wikitext markup has escalated that high, it's likely to be a symptom of a more serious underlying major content dispute or serious personality clash.11:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Offliner[edit]

Do you believe the nationalities of Wikipedia's editors are fairly represented in the current ArbCom? Could you please reveal your own nationality? If you do not wish to reveal your exact nationality, could you at least state whether you are from an anglophone country? Offliner (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Yes it does; the current Arbcom comprises two editors in Canada, two in Britain, one in Africa, one in Asia and six in the US, which correlates to the overall breakdown of Wikipedia editors fairly accurately. This is a project for which the ability to write fluently in English is a primary criterion; we're obviously going to have a disproportionate number of editors from English-speaking countries. (2) US but currently resident in the UK. – iridescent 18:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own feeling is that non-anglophone nationalities are severely underrepresented. I'm not aware of a good statistic, ~~but as a very rough guide, I counted the nationalities listed at Category:Editors_by_nationality, where:~~

225 (62%) are nationals of an anglophone country

137 (38%) are nationals of a non-anglophone country

~~Assuming that only the one African and the one Asian arbitrators are non-anglophone, that means only 17% of the current arbitrators are non-anglophones.~~ Don't you think this could be a problem? Offliner (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. This is the English language Wikipedia; one expects to find English speaking editors. Looking at Category:Editors_by_nationality is totally misleading; it only shows those editors who have chosen to self-identify as being from a particular country. If you dip-sample the highly active editors who are the drivers of Wikipedia—be it WP:WBE, WP:WBFAN, WP:HAU, WP:WBRE or whatever other acronym you choose—you'll find that the North America–Britain/Ireland–Aus/NZ axis drives the development of en-wiki.

With respect, this is not a chat page; I'm not going to clog it with an extended discussion. – iridescent 19:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what's it worth (and you can remove this if you'd like or if it's in the wrong place, etc.), but the category that you and Offliner are discussing isn't for Wikipedia editors by nationality - it's for editors by nationality. TN X Man 21:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. That was a stupid mistake by me -- sorry about that. I've striked out the false info. Offliner (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BorisG[edit]

I have a question about this comment of yours.Are you suggesting that it is OK for a banned user to evade a year-long ban by setting up a new account as long as the activity from this new account is proper and useful? If so, doesn't this negate the deterrent effect of such serious sanctions? Thank you. - BorisG (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and yes. Arbcom is (allegedly) a dispute-resolution body, not a law enforcement agency; with the exception of a very few serious cases, generally involving real-life issues, people take the idea of "bans" much too seriously. On a project with anonymity as a core principle, "ban" and "conflict of interest" are both social constructs. I know I sound like a broken record on the topic but the number of active editors is falling sharply; we shouldn't be blocking people who are being helpful just because they've fallen foul of the internal politics of Wikipedia in the past and have been honest enough to admit the link. – iridescent 16:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your last sentence. I also believe the ArbCom knows this and believes the same. Thus I assume that if a user is banned for a year by ArbCom, it is as a last resort and for very serious violations of Wikipedia policies, not for falling "foul of the internal politics of Wikipedia". It is thus amazing to me that you regard as not serious sanctions by a body you would like to join. If ArbCom members are going to take their sanctions lightly, who will take them seriously? I take ArbCom and its sanctions seriously as a necessary evil designed to stop the slide of the Wikipedia into chaos (in some areas). To put it in a different way, if you, as a (hypothetical) arbitrator think the ban is wrong, you should argue strongly against its imposition, but once the ban is imposed against your vote, you should respect it and take it seriously (in my opinon).

Your answer to my quetsion on the main questions page is similarly troubling. It seems you regard the maze of policies as obstacles to core policies and the main goal of building encyclopedia. You ignore the fact that most if not all of those policies are designed by the consensus of the most active and responsible editors and are aimed to implement those core principles and the main goal. Yes, there may be some tension between various policy provisions. This is natural. Also some policies have not withstood the test of time. In particular I agree with your position on COI and civility. But I find many small policy provisions to be quite cleverly designed to facilitate the building of the encyclopedia. I would hope every arbitrator will take them seriously though not dogmatically. Yes we should see the forest behind the trees but we should not forget the trees either. It is a balancing act. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion; I'm entitled to mine. Mine is that people all too often treat Arbcom with grossly exaggerated respect, and treat Arbcom rulings as Holy Writ rather than as the general guidance they ought to be. For the record, this was the "very serious violations of Wikipedia policies" that got the user in question blocked. – iridescent 17:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reverence is a matter of taste. But if ArbCom and its decisions are not to be taken seriously, then why on earth take the time and trouble of serving on it? - BorisG (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]