Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Loosmark/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: Loosmark

Questions/comments from Ncmvocalist and responses from Loosmark[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)

Administrators

Q1. In your opinion, are unblocks more harmful than blocks? Why? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: It's hard to answer that question with a straight yes or no as it depends on the circumstances. For example if there is an Admin who unblocks editors because they are friends or because they share a certain POV then yes unblocking can be bad. But to be honest, in my view the problem, is more the opposite one, there are some admins who constantly jump on unblocks requests and refuse them with cynical comments. Dr. Loosmark 17:20, 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) 15:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: I will be short: such an admin needs to be desyopped at once. In general that's one of the biggest problems on wikipedia, the RfA process is best described as a bad joke but once the Admin passes, they are protected like a polar bear. Dr. Loosmark 17:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q3. {placeholder}

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. I have no idea what will happen in the future and whether the long term survivability is at risk. What I do know is that the current situation both in terms of article quality as well as the level of knowledgeable contributors is not that good. I think a long slow decline is the most likely option if we do not try to improve the situation.
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. In short, strengths: volunteers ready to "donate" their free time and share their knowledge, Google has Wikipedia articles on top in searches, weaknesses: the quality of the articles is declining, many questionable admins, battlefields everywhere, community semi-nonfunctionable, too much chaos etc...
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. Too many bad contributors and too few quality contributors (those are often driven away).
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. Wikipedia is currently unable to provide a friendly environment IMO. I prefer not to comment on the recent high profile burnouts because I am not sure which specific cases do you have in mind.
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. I don't know if there is an ideal ratio but prioritizing should definitely be on improving existing content.
Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
A. In my opinion no. Nowadays even the most unimportant web forums asks you to register to post.
If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
A. Hard to pick one thing. Maybe I would change/improve the RfA process. At the moment it is pretty flawed and meaningless.

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.
A: Not a bad idea, but like usual the devil hides in the details, who will decide what exactly is "marginally notable"? I can see a lot of arguing about that. But in general I agree with the concept.

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.
A: Makes sense.

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)
A: I agree, actually I am in favor of setting all BLPs to semi protection by default.

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?
A: To be honest I have stopped followed all the discussions after it became clear there will be no consensus how the trial went. In general I'd say that concept is better than nothing but not sufficient.

e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
A: I support.
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?
A: Policy obviously

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?

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.
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?
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.
A: I totally agree. As soon as the issue isn't clear cut, the consensus concept just doesn't work anymore.^{I might explain this a bit more later} In my opinion the solution to break the deadlock is to elect a set of bodies which would deal with certain aspects of the project.
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?
A: I am in favor of flagged revisions. The trial was necessary but unfortunately the opinions about it were very split, it was impossible to even reach a consensus whether it was a success. The reasons for the delay are clear: I believe that there is a consensus that at least the BLP articles need it however the community is unable to reach consensus on a preferred implementation/solution. My solution for breaking the deadlock is the following one: the community should elect a body which would be in charge of the technical aspects in similar situations. Then all the community should do is simply to vote on whether flagged revisions are needed. If yes then the elected body deals with the implementation.
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?

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)?

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?

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?

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)

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?

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)
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?

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.
A: I will answer a) and b) together: there are 3 things which need to be done: 1) new users of wikipedia have to be explained the risk and hazards of editing wikipedia including revealing too much personal information on web, it's especially important to give this information to our younger contributors, unfortunately there are a lot of derailed individuals on internet, wikipedia is not an exception 2) real life stalking should be reported to the police as a rule, zero tolerance for psychos 3) wiki-stalking also needs to be promptly addressed and dealt with by the admins

c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
A: Well for starters that person should be instructed to disclose as little information as possible about themselves while editing.

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.
A: If somebody is really doing that there is only one solution: report the stalker to the Police.

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?

f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
A: Yes, I have seen that happen once.

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?
A: I don't know who is this "remarkably unwelcome" editor and who characterized him that way. Unless there some sort of extraordinary reason (for example clear copyright concern or something like that) I am not in favor of the elephant like "revert all" concept.
Without going into too much detail, assume this is an editor whose activities are so beyond the pale that the police have indeed been involved in the past. Does that change your answer? ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 27 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?
A: To be honest I find this question weird. There is no problem discussing Wikipedia off Wikipedia. Only totalitarian regimes have problems with such things.
See WP:BADSITES. At one point it was Revealed Truth that any offsite criticism was prima facie bad. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 27 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?
A: I don't have.

c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
A: I have visited the Wikipedia Review website a couple times a year ago, my impression was quite positive.

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)?
A: I see no problem with that, we live in a free world.

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? )
A: I don't have an account.

f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
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)?
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)?
A: Yeah, there is "a problem" with factionalism, and that problem has the size of VY Canis Majoris
What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)

Submitted 22:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC) by ++Lar: t/c

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?
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?

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

Hi Rschen7754. I agree with both a) and b). As for the guidelines/convention I don't believe any group should have the right to do that. In fact on wikipedia groups of editors successfully implemented some were stupid conventions left and right.

An example: the Japanese city of Nara. Some not very smart wikipedians decided that the article about Nara cannot be under the Nara name allegedly because it is not clear that Nara is the primary topic (there is also the Nara Prefecture). Now, instead of at least adopting some logical disambiguation such as "Nara (city)" or "Nara (Nara prefecture)" they put the article under "Nara, Nara". Apart from being confusing, it's almost tragicomic: the city is called Nara, every source calls the city Nara but wikipedia calls the city "Nara, Nara". Dr. Loosmark 13:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of question from Shooterwalker[edit]

Makes sense. Absent that elected policy-making body... do you think ArbCom ever has a role in making a temporary committee of administrators, community members, or even ArbCom members to either set policy, or guide the community in resolving it? Shooterwalker (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the ArbCom should be making any temporary committees for policy making because neither the Arbs nor the ArbCom does not have the mandate to do such things. Such bodies need a wider legitimization and are better elected directly by the community. Dr. Loosmark 16:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and good luck! Shooterwalker (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]