Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for John Reid

Question from Xaosflux

 * 1) As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. (Question from —  xaosflux  Talk 12:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This question substantially duplicates one just below; I'll reply there.

Questions from Mailer Diablo
@ Thank you for your answers! :) - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your questions! John Reid ° 10:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from AnonEMouse
Warning: Most of these are intended to be tough. Answering them properly will be hard. I don't expect anyone to actually withdraw themselves from nomination rather than answer these, but I do expect at least some to seriously think about it!

The one consolation is that your competitors for the positions will be asked them too. Notice that there are about one thousand admins, and about a dozen arbcom members, so the process to become an arbcom member may be expected to be one hundred times harder.

Questions from Newyorkbrad
These are standard questions I have been asking all candidates. However, in view of the large number of questions above dealing with overlapping themes (which did have not yet been posted when I posed these questions to other candidates), please feel free to respond with a simple "see above" if that's the appropriate response. Newyorkbrad 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Q. Thank you for the ... comprehensive response. But what makes you think that the arbitrators who changed their positions gave in to the existence of audience reaction rather than the merits of the audience's arguments? (See comment from Jayjg, comment from Raul654, comment from Morven).'''


 * Well, that is an imponderable. Even if you asked each arbitrator to tell exactly his reasoning you might never know just what swayed him. But certainly ArbCom was swayed. They appeared to me first to ignore solid reasoning, then respond to emotional appeals. Perhaps not.


 * I don't think it's an enormously big deal; as you and I and quite a few people said at the time, they were getting ready to make a poor decision and finally made a better one. I commented on my talk at the time that I didn't feel they'd done so out of honest conviction but from political motives. Perhaps I didn't pile on enough weasel words at the time but like all such comments, it's just one man's opinions. We'll never really know.


 * I would not have answered at such length if I thought I could have done so completely in less space. Judicial independence is an important principle. I will be more responsive to community concerns than a great many arbitrators, I expect; but I cannot cater to the mob. Not on the bench.


 * Q. Are you serious in your comment above that you could never support an RfA candidate who had never been blocked, or is that rhetorical hyperbole? If you actually mean it, is there a specific type of violation of Wikipedia policy that you are looking for people to engage in (I ask as a potential RfA candidate myself someday :) ) ? I don't think an isolated block should be disqualifying for a candidate, but please explain why you believe that it is a good thing for editors to violate -- or to have been perceived as having violated (a distinction I expect you would make if I hadn't anticipated it) -- the very same rules that, by running for arbitrator, you seek to be empowered to enforce.


 * I dislike hyperbole; if my writing is colorful, it's because I have colorful thoughts, not because I inflame them for public consumption. Yes, admin candidates should have a short block log. I think it's particularly good to see a candidate blocked stupidly or carelessly, out of spite, or otherwise wrongfully. I also want to see how the candidate handled the block. Did he demand to be unblocked, possibly to start a wheel war? Did he set fire to something? If the block was well given, did the candidate learn from it?


 * We all change, based on our experiences. I never gave much thought to blocking one way or the other before I was blocked; if you had asked me, I suspect, I might have said "So what?" It's difficult for me, even now, to understand why anyone would place much importance on blocking. You go on IRC, visit a few channels, and no matter what you say (maybe nothing at all), some chan op is going to kick you. Here on Wikipedia, great quantities of blocks are handed out hourly. Some are to kids for scribbling on the blackboard, some to black-hearted merchants of death for pushing their agendas, some to well-respected editors who cross the line once, some to absolute saints out of spite.


 * What's truly pathetic about the idea that blocking is punishment is that it doesn't require me to do anything at all. If you're sent to sit in the corner, well, that's time out; you don't get to play with any of your toys. If you go to jail, it's smelly, loud, and the food is bad. If you are fined, well, that can really cost money and that's always a problem. But what possible inconvenience is it to have one's Wikipedia user account blocked? I don't even have to stop editing for a day; I always edit in a word processor. I can save up temporary files (like the one on which this section is contained right now, while I write my reply), continue to edit at will, and dump all the edits in tomorrow. I can even use my talk page as a sandbox if I need to check formatting.


 * This naturally assumes the blockee's parole. Less honest editors can just edit anonymously or under a sock. It's rather absurd to host a party, insist that the door remain fully open at all times, and then hope to throw anybody out. This is cyberspace; the ejected bum can simply screw on a new face and come right back in. Ha ha, you want something to keep your eyes open tonight? Maybe WoW grew up a little and decided to register a sock and not vandalize with it. Maybe he's running on RfA now. You just don't know.


 * Now that I've been blocked, I have new thoughts on the subject. I was astonished to find myself personally offended. The block itself is no inconvenience but the implication is distasteful -- the suggestion that I am so irrational that I cannot even see when it is pointed out to me that I am in violation of community standards. I can see very easily how another person, with a shorter fuse, might stalk off and never come back. Do we want to push this button?


 * It's pretty obvious that blocking is a poor "punishment" indeed. You can't block a troll; he comes right back and has no respect for the implication. You can block new editors but they have no stake in the community, so they don't really care. You can certainly block in hopes of sufficiently inconveniencing disruptive visitors that they don't come back but that's not punishment; that's just prophylactic action. Blocking-as-punishment has value only to interrupt an editor who is actively doing bad, in hopes it may give him sufficient pause for him to rethink. If you block a good editor for any other reason, you're just cutting off your nose to spite your face. The editor will likely ignore you for the duration of the block, live his life, and you lose his work for the day. If you guessed wrong, you lose him for as long as he remains angry -- possibly forever. If you guessed really wrong, you create a troll; I've seen it happen. You can't fire volunteers. You aren't paying money; you don't have any leverage.


 * Blocking is a serious measure. I suspect we block far too frequently and far too quickly, in many cases. This is part of the price we pay for a fully open door: an atmosphere of hostility and gunslinging -- frontier justice. I think RC Patrol and the admins who back it up by blocking new editors develop a distorted view of our community; they start to see enemies everywhere. You're either with us, or against us. The end of this paranoid road is a project guarded by a fanatic cadre of defenders beating off all edits except from within their own circle. Paradoxically, the final result of the fully-open-door policy may be to weld it shut.


 * So, I've had to think again about standards for admins. We've all seen candidates nod their heads up and down at RfA, swear to use the tools wisely, then go right out and wreak havoc with them. Then we don't just block them; we de-admin them -- or try. I've decided that nobody is to be trusted with the big red button who has not felt the other end of it. That's all.


 * If you, personally, are wondering what rule to go out and break so as to qualify in my eyes, please don't. That earns no points with me. Just keep doing as you do: Get in the thick of the policy debates and speak your mind. Be Bold, make some controversial edits -- good ones, of course. Sooner or later, some wheel warrior will block you. Then you can stand for RfA and think about blocking somebody else.

Questions from User:Carcharoth
Copy of the questions User:John Reid has been asking other candidates, so he can answer them himself! :-) Carcharoth 12:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Badbilltucker
Thank you for volunteering to take on this task, and for putting yourself through having to answer these questions. For what it's worth, these particular questions are going to all the candidates.

Questions from Torinir
I'm asking these questions all applicants:

Questions from Ben Aveling
Regards, Ben Aveling 21:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Question by Carcharoth
I have been perusing the block logs of candidates in these elections. Do you think looking at past incidents and disputes documented in a block log are a good way of assessing a candidate? Carcharoth 00:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Anomo
1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2. I have read on several websites (they even gave links to block logs) of Wikipedia admins who do things like indefinitely blocking accounts who have not edited for months, there was no CheckUser anything, no reports, and the admin didn't give any reason, just put personal attacks as the block reason (e.g. saying "troll"). Basically such cases seem done beyond punative, but just out of bullying. I saw at least ten of these, but so far I can only find one here. I don't feel like digging for hours, as I just want to ask your opinion of whether you support or oppose such admin activity because it's clear most support it. Anomo 12:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

3. What is your view on the current policy often called "kicking them while they're down" of deleting the user and talk pages of people who are blocked? Anomo 12:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is your view on the practice on Wikipedia where a person blanks out text on talk pages because the text mentioned something wrong the person did or defeated them in an argument? The text blanked usually has no reason given. When there is a reason given, it's only a fake reason. In rare cases, the text is not blanked, but the entire talk page is archived including discussions hours old, blanking it out. Anomo 12:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

5. What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them? Anomo 12:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Why is it that in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has usually sided with the admins? Anomo 17:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Proto
Hi John. With your project, at Source grading, you've continued to add the tags you created for the project to articles, despite the universal appellations to stop and get a community consensus befopre proceeding, as everyone who has commented on the idea seems to be of the unanimous opinion that it is a bad idea. Yet you proceeded anyway. What's the reasoning behind that?

Question from Dfrg.msc
In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.m s c 1. 2 . Editor Review 23:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting in the elections
Hello, the ArbCom elections are coming up very soon and I was wondering if you would give your public assurance not to vote or comment on other candidates. I think this will help keep friction to a minimum. Imagine how ugly it would be if two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other both ended up sitting on the ArbCom together. I think, in the best interests of decorum, these kind of conflict of interest issues should be avoided. Do you agree? -- Cyde Weys 20:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Candidate Questions
1. As concisely as possible, please explain how you would continue with your stated commitment to the ArbCom process as an ordinary editor, should you NOT be "elected". Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.


 * My reasons for this question are three-fold.


 * First, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's a powerful statement that has many meanings. It means that, among other things, any user has the power to do pretty much anything, should they wish it. I submit my own user contributions as evidence.
 * Second, one thing that's a constant is Wikipedia's GNU License. As an online-encyclopedia, the history of everything, every edit, every comment, every misdeed, every injury, and every achievement are readily available to anyone who wish to look at it. All they need is a computer, frankly, and they can dig away.
 * The third is merely a perception. Power is great, but when the entire history of your actions are utterly transparent, and anyone can do virtually anything on their first day here, it's really just a big illusion. I further submit that the more "power" you think you have, the more you have to "lose". You also have to more "work" and have less "fun".

2. What do you think about this "election"? What do you think about your fellow "candidates"? What do you think about "campaign banners" on an online, open-source encyclopedia? What do you think about your own "campaign"? Please answer as concisely as possible, preferably in 100 words or less. For reference, please see this: [WP:Wikipedia is not a Democracy]]?

3. What, specifically have you done wrong in the past as an editor, community member, administrator, and human being trying to create a world-wide online open source encyclopedia on Wikipedia? For reference, see my own user contributions. Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

4. Do you apologize for your actions, and who are you apologising to, specifically? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

5. Hypothetically, how would you deal with an explosion of editors and users behaving very badly because Wikipedia has just aquired a bigger "stick". For reference please see Soft Power.

6. What, exactly do you want do on Wikipedia? Why did you come here, and why did you stay for more than a minute? What's fun for you here? What makes you happy here? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

Questions from LoveLight
Would you kindly evaluate and/or comment article 911. As a reader do you find that piece factual and accurate? As an editor do you find it satisfying (with regards to our fundamental Wiki policies and guidelines)? As future arbitrator how do you feel about status quo imposed on that and similar "ever burning" editorials? Lovelight 10:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from jc37
Things to take into consideration in responding to the following questions: One of my main criteria in selecting whom I would like to see as arbitrators is an ability in discernment, and in diplomacy. Also, a Wikipedian who may be involved in contentious issues does not lose or gain my support on only those grounds, as long as the involvement is in a community/encyclopedia-building sense, since that "may" merely mean that the person is involved in issues of contention, which I think is a large enough factor in being on the arbitration committee. Also, while many of the questions below may seem to have rather obvious answers, please consider what I mentioned above. Thanks in advance for your responses : ) - jc37 17:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1.) Seeing that it currently seems less than likely that your nomination will succeed, why do you not withdraw? Is this due to an outside hope of the underdog, as a sort of RfC learning experience, a mixture, or something else?


 * 2.) You've stated your concerns about the arbitration committee's onvolvement with the making of policy. How do you feel about the recent decision involving WP:CHILD? Did they go too far (if so how), did they not go far enough (in which case, what would you suggest), or do you feel that they stayed the middle course evenly, performing "just right"?


 * 3.) You state in answer to a question of User:Mailer Diablo above: "...this entire page is foolish." You then go on to describe that you feel that such is "...information hard to get and information unreliable...", and say to go with your "gut instenct", "flip a coin", or even suggesting: "If I were you, I'd vote for whoever made me feel good for five minutes". As most cases in the arbitration committee involve such information gathering, would you elaborate more fully on this?


 * 4.) "If community consensus backs a practice, it is policy." - Could you more fully explain this statement?


 * 5.)"I'm running for ArbCom because I like to see an orderly process of policy formation in which members of our community sit down together and rationally work out their concerns. If you elect me to the bench, you will see me do what I do now: Nag people to edit this page and please, don't fight. Thank you." - Do you think that this would to be something that should have been placed in your "statement"? Also, do you feel that this contradicts your other statements about the arbitration committe and policy? If not, please explain.


 * 6.) Based on "Writing articles is the only essential contribution." - How do you feel about the work done in "support" of the encyclopedia? (Admins, XfDs, the arbitration committee, etc.)


 * 7.) "We should now have a legislative body to balance it -- as well as our executive." - This would seem to suggest that you would favour a republic form of heirarchy on Wikipedia. Do you agree or disagree; and either way, would you more fully explain?

Question from Zoe
What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)