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

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.
I don't think we should allow opt-out or opt-in - it would lead to a lot of problems and concerns of maintaining neutrality/impartiality. However, if it is a tossup, and the subject expresses their desire not to have an article, then that would be a deciding factor for me to delete.

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.
I don't think it should be an automatic default (because there are many roads to 'no consensus'). But I am sympathetic to this view.

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)
I wasn't a huge fan of the subpage. It would have been better to push for change working within the processes rather than creating a user subpage where the protection policy is enforced 'differently' than at RFPP.
You missed the point of the question. The subpage was given merely as an example of problematic articles that got longer term Semi than RFPP was willing to hand out. So, again then: This is a personal view question, do you think liberal semi (longer term protection) is a good idea, or not? ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, depending on the character of the vandalism. Persistent vandalism that specifically targets a BLP should receive longer-term protection, someone just adding "POOP LOL" should not.

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?
I didn't follow the trial and discussion much at all, there was simply too much to take in - I'm not even sure what the end result was.
Does it concern you that you're not well informed about something that might have a very big effect on how things are done in the project going forward? To be fair, it was a really long and difficult to follow discussion that went in a lot of different directions and pages, and looked like it was "done" more than once only to come unraveled and start up again. ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat; but early on in the debate over flagged revisions, I made a decision (for a number of reasons - one of which you've touched on in your follow up) to allow that decision-making process to proceed without my input or review.

e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
Seems to move away from the open editing model and might create/further contribute to a caste system.
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 question of policy that concerns content.

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?
You'll have to be more specific.
Review other candidate questions/answers for the links to three specific ones I thought of, but there are many cases or motions that are somehow intertwined with BLP? Have you been reviewing cases much at all? Did you notice any that had BLP aspects? Do you have any comment on the three specific ones I mentioned (Badlydrawnjeff, the summary motion at the beginning of this year, and CC)... remember those are not the only possible cases. ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that while "ArbCom does not set policy", when the community reaches a logjam with respect to BLP, the committee can and should break stalemates in order to protect living persons from intentional or unintentional harm that may be caused by the community's inability to reach an agreement. With regards to Badlydrawnjeff, I would probably reword the "Do no harm" motion. We must consider harm, but as an encyclopedia we cannot reasonably claim to 'do no harm' while reasonably claiming neutrality. With regards to the summary motion at the beginning of the year, I would not be as willing to simply overlook out-of-process summary deletions and feel that the processes in place should be engaged except in clear-cut cases - but do understand that the community had hit a bit of a wall in the reduction of unreferenced BLPs and some felt that "civil disobedience" was necessary to jar the community into action.

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.

I'll use a quote which says it more eloquently that I would: "If wikipedia is really going to insist that it will write about living people against their will, then it must ensure its editors do so in a courteous and respectful way, even if the subject doesn't respond in kind. Remember we trod on their toe, and insist that we can because we are simply recording facts. ... Is wikipedia to be trusted with writing about people who don't want written about? If it claims it is, then vendettas, trolling, responding in kind, must be deemed absolutely unacceptable." (Scott MacDonald, April 24, 2010)
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.

The consensus model can lead to some endless stalemates. But I don't know if moving to strict voting is any better, and that can lead to another set of problems.
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?
I value the open editing model, so I think that using some kind of pending changes is preferable to having articles semi-protected for long periods of time. I haven't examined the discussion, so I can't give a qualified answer as to why the community has failed to come to a decision, but it's probably tied in to the fact that the consensus model does not scale well and can result in stalemates. I don't think the committee has a role in this.
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. The internet is home to all kinds of individuals of dubious moral character.

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)?
N/A

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?
Reasonable steps may be taken to allow an individual to enhance their personal security. They should not be punished because they made a choice they later regret.

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?
It might not be outing, but it might be considered a form of harassment depending on the intent and character of the message that reveals the link.

e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity?
No.

Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity?
It should remain their choice.

Why or why not?
It's a personal choice.

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.

f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee?
I don't know.

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?
What loss? As in outing? Outing is a chilling form of harassment that should be strictly enforced and prohibited.

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)
They should be blocked.

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?
Some kind of editing disclaimer would be useful.

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.
This is a job for law enforcement, with whom the WMF should cooperate in accordance with the privacy policy.

c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
Again, cooperation with law enforcement in accordance with the privacy policy. I would personally advise them not to disclose anything about themselves and reconsider editing Wikipedia altogether.

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.
Judicious use of blocks and protection.

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?
If an editor's contributions have been problematic, reviewing their contribution history to attempt to ameliorate disruption is not stalking/harassment. However, it must be carried out in a respectful and civil manner.

f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
There have been, but they haven't lasted long.

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?
As far as I know, this only applies to banned editors. And if their edits are problematic, then reverting them seems appropriate. If someone made good edits, then they should be judged on their merits - simply blanket reverting them seems like biting off the nose to spite the face.
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?
It's unreasonable to suggest all discussion of Wikipedia would remain on Wikipedia.

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. I don't have such a vehicle because I doubt anyone would read it if I did - I'm a pretty boring editor, all things considered.

c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
It's not as bad as some make it out to be. A lot of discussion there is pretty dry, to be honest.

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)?
I think it's acceptable to participate there. It has helped to highlight and solve problems with articles, especially BLPs.

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?
Yes. It's linked. I don't think it's really fair game to contribute over there and not link it to one's account here, especially if the intent is to maintain a good hand/bad hand dynamic.

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? )
Would depend on the intent and the circumstances.

f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
The community seems to have become more reasonable in its collective view of Wikipedia Review and realized that it is not, in fact, the big bad wolf.
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)?
I don't think the users who some consider "vested contributors" consider themselves "entitled to a degree of indulgence or bending of the rules". They simply have a different interpretation of certain policies/guidelines and act accordingly. The real problem actually lies with the administrators who shoot from the hip and block/unblock without thinking it through or while the subject is being discussed (see Wikipedia:Cowboy adminship).
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)?
In certain topic areas, yes. Like-minded folks with similar goals usually band together. What to do about it? Keep an eye out for it, and take steps to ensure the faction don't compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia.
What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
Green - it brings out my eyes ;>

Submitted 19:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC) by ++Lar: t/c

There was a lot to cover, and I tore through it. If you would like me to expand on anything, let me know. –xeno^talk 20:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a few followups. ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered, thanks. –xeno^talk 14:07, 29 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 greatest threat is contributor attrition. If we don't have enough people maintaining the project, it will fall (further) into disrepair. I'm not sure how to limit attrition, but the Foundation should enhance their efforts to recruit editors. Overall health: Fair.
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. The greatest strength of the project is its contributors and the greatest weakness is its susceptibility to coordinated POV pushing. I think in general the processes work fairly well, except we lack an effective mechanism for removing administrators who have lost the confidence of the community. Not sure about the content question.
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. Not enough.
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, the attrition rate is too high. I think drama is the main contributing factor, but don't really have any useful suggestions on reducing it.
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. Probably improving existing content.
Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
A. Yes.
If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
A. I'd change back to the original logo. The new one is horrid.

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]

They're decent essays that provide relevant advice.
Sometimes they may have the ability, but they certainly don't have the right. –xeno^talk 15:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/comments from Ncmvocalist[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) 15:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A: Not on their face, but unblocks made in haste while the block is being discussed are. They're standoffish and smack of cowboy adminship.

Q2. (F/UP of Q1) If discussion appears to be prolonging a block to the point that either the block expires or the good faith user has left the project, and the block is subsequently unsupported by a Community consensus, would your answer to Q1 be any different?

Hindsight being 20/20? If a block is simply horrible, then that usually comes out fairly quickly in a community discussion.

Q3. (F/UP of Q1) Can you describe a situation which, in your opinion, smacks of cowboy adminship? Given that you've described one situation where it relates to unblocks, assume that you are to describe a situation that relates to blocks.

Hmm, my block of DougsTech right after the community discussed it at WT:RFA and concluded that he not be topic banned from RFA comes to mind (further reading). While the community eventually came to the same decision, they weren't ready at the time.

Q 4-5 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.

Q4. How would you deal with or respond to this situation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A: I would suggest they divorce themselves from their administrative actions; reconsider their approach to administration; and remind them that administrators serve the community and must maintain the standards expected of administrators or risk no longer being one.

Q5. {placeholder}

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) 18:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) I don't know, I don't keep track of nationalities. 2) Canadian. –xeno^talk 18:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]