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

Please, ask your questions here.

Quick note - my net connection at home is currently out of action, and so if you keep them short, and section break between any long questions, I'll be able to answer quicker (as I'll be accessing this whilst at home using Opera Mini, and it has a 450 character limit). Any longer questions can at the moment only be answered at certain times, but I will answer your question, no matter how long it is. Thanks. Proto :: type  15:27, 28 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.

1. I've noticed that a total of thriteen people have resigned from the committee, and that there is currently one vacancy open in one of the tranches. Having members of the committee resign sometime during their term could create problems somewhere down the road. What do you think are the odds that you yourself might consider resigning during the course of your term, and what if any circumstances can you envision that might cause you to resign? Also, do you think that possibly negative feelings from others arising as a result of a decision you made could ever be likely to be cause for your own resignation?


 * Hi Bill. Short of death or disability, no, I won't resign early.  If the community is good enough to put their faith in me, it would be discourteous to let them down.   Unless my actions deserve my resignation - I hope this won't be the case!  I am thick-skinned, and so a little criticism will never bother me.  I close a lot of contentious deletion discussions, and get criticism from all kinds of people.  Thus far, I have been able to deal with any and all criticism that comes my way.

2. There may well arise cases where a dispute based on the inclusion of information whose accuracy is currently a point of seemingly reasonable controversy, possibly even bitter controversy, in that field of study. Should you encounter a case dealing with such information, and few if any of your colleagues on the committee were knowledgeable enough in the field for them to be people whose judgement in this matter could be completely relied upon, how do you think you would handle it?


 * On a personal level, as an editor, I would suggest that both points of view should be referred to on the article. You must bear in mind, though, that the Arbitration Committee is not there to deal with content disputes - Wikipedians are expected be able to manage these without the Arbcom's involvement, and there are other places to go (mediation, RFC) if this is not possible.  Additionally, with any information that is currently controversial, remember that in another 12 months it could be accepted, or it could be completely refuted; Wikipedia is a long-term project.  Let me point you in the way of Eventualism, which has some useful further reading on the subject.

Three questions from Carcharoth
Thanks for running in the election.

1. Who are you?


 * Hey Carcaroth. I live in Wales, where I work for the NHS. Proto is not (!) my real name. More later.  (more added) .  I've never been to keen aboiut revealing too much about my personal life online, but a few bits:  I have a degree in medical engineering, I'm getting married in around a year, I am obsessive about grammar, am near-fluent in French, speak Welsh with my grandparents, and I'm learning Polish (so I can talk to my fiance's mother) and Spanish (as it's cool) at the moment.

2. Are you 13? Are you 18?


 * I wish I was 18 again ... I'm 27 :(

3. Should ArbCom arbitrate policy disputes or any other matter outside user conduct issues? Why or why not?


 * I believe Arbcom should NEVER be involved in resolving content/policy disputes. All Wikipedians are capable of resolving such problems. We need discussion, and mediation when required, not sweeping directives. They're the community's issues, and they MUST be resolved via community process.

Questions from maclean
1. Do you have dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Mediation Committee, Mediation Cabal, Third opinion, Requests for comment, or Association of Members' Advocates? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you seek a position with the Mediation Committee?


 * Maclean - Mediation groups, no. I have no interest in formally committing myself to any form of mediation group - mediation is not something I have either the patience nor the aptitude for, and I'm full of admiration for those who do.


 * I have occasionally volunteered an outside opinion on RFCs, but I've never been directly involved with one as far as I can remember.


 * As I mention, mediation isn't for me - I've tried on occasion, and have coped, but I think I'm better suited to other areas, and I will not seek any position with the Mediation Committee.


 * As an addendum, I believe there needs to be a clear understanding that mediation and arbitration are two very different things. Mediation is an attempt to resolve a dispute through clear communication, and trying to get each party to understand the others' point of view, and come to some kind of consensus on a course of action that will ensure all parties are satisfied.  Sometimes, this is not possible.  Wikipedia does, sadly, suffer from what people like to call 'problem users'.  Many of them are purely out to cause trouble, many are very politicised, or believe very strongly in a certain point of view, and will not stand for any point of view being expressed in an article, other than their own.  It's at these times that mediation will not work, and arbitration is required.  The Arbcom, as they do have an amount of power, must necessarily be comprised of Wikipedians who are able to ensure that the policies that have been arrived at through community discussion and consensus, are adhered to.

2. Should arbitrators discuss remedies amongst themselves before they vote or approach all cases independently of one another?


 * As I say in my candidacy statemnt, I don't agree with any Wikipedia issues being done off-Wikipedia. IRC has its uses (asking questions of an admin, vandalism-fighting), but the discussion of Wikipedia-based issues is not one of them.  Arbitrators do, and should, discuss remedies amongst themselves before the case is finalised (every ArbCom discussion has a subpage for this), but it should all be done on-Wiki.

Question from Ragesoss

 * 1) In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?


 * Hi Ragesoss. SPOV is not a term I've heard before (did you come up with it yourself?), but I understand what you mean.  Good science is inherently a neutral topic.  A good scientific paper states facts, without attempting to push the reader into one conclusion or another, unless the facts definitively assert that conclusion, and are backed up by further peer review and duplication of results.  If a scientific article is researched, managed and produced through a proper, scientific manner, then it will inherently be of a neutral point of view.


 * See WP:SPOV for an historical proposal detailing the concept in at least one way. Ans e ll  22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Anomo
1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No - why should there be? I know plenty of Wikipedia users below (say) 18 who are far, far more mature, level-headed and sensible than plenty of users abopve that age.  Besides - unless we start checking, how would you know for sure, anyway?

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 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)(UTC)


 * That's an interesting case. Thodin is most definitely a troll, and his website (which I won't publicise with a link) claims (amongst other things) that every single Wikipedia admin is a sockpuppet of Willmcw, and that everyone is stalking him.  It's full of legal threats, and attempts to asecertain the real life identity of Wikipedia admins.  You can't see evidence of many of his actions via his contributions because most of his trolling, and pages about wikistalking, were deleted.  I heartily support keeping trolls off Wikipedia, so long as it is obvious.  In this case, it was.  It would help if the blocking admin gave more detail on why he blocked the user in question - if it really is something you would like to know, why don't you ask whoever the blocking admin was?

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 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If they are permanently blocked, and they had personal attacks, hate speech and other unsavoury content on their user / talk pages, I don't see a problem with this (although it is rare for talk pages to be deleted, other than via user request if they are leaving Wikipedia - see here). If they are only temporarily blocked, as a preventative measure, then they don't have their user and talk pages wiped and replaced with the 'This user is indefinitely blocked' template.  If someone has done this, then they really should not have.  Proto ::  type  10:01, 30 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 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's in interesting discussion on a similar topic on Removing warnings, and there's currently a bid to resolve the issue of whether it's okay to remove warnings here. If it's your own talk page, I consider it your talk page.  Providing you don't misrepresent or edit comments made by others, then you may do what you like with your talk page.  Removal of (recent) comments on other talk pages, however, is a no-no.


 * Followup question purely about archiving all discussion even one minutes old: I asked about several things, here but the part seems to be ignored by most I ask it to. I have seen where there is heated debate, someone who dislikes the debate or is losing (I have usually seen admins do this) they will archve the entire talk page of an article, including discussions hours old (sometimes minutes), just say archiving and the talk page is empty. Two examples come to mind, but if I name them I might risk offending the admins so I would rather not. Anomo 02:59, 2 December 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 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That only happens if the user is using their talk page to troll, to abuse other users, or to spam repeated requests over and over and over despite being informed that their block will stand.  It is not to 'avoid communication with them'.

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 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Short answer - it does seem that way, and that's because the user with admin status is usually (but not always!) right.


 * Long answer - why? Because the admin have usually been around Wikipedia longer, and will have a better handle on Wikipedia policy and guideline.   Many of the disputes that ArbCom are asked to resolve are between a seasoned user, who has usually acuqired sysop status somewhere along the way (and that is incidental), trying to enforce a policy or apply a guideline, and a newer, un-sysopped user.  It's nothing to do with their admin status - it's to do with the fact that those who do gain administrator status usually know what Wikipedia does and does not allow.  When the Arbitration Committee, who have the final say on the correct application of Wikipedia policy, make their decision, it reflects policy.  The fact that it seems to side with the admin is a byproduct of these facts.

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. (Bonus question - do you think I hit that difficulty standard?) :-)

1. A current Arbcom case, Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?


 * It does not - this is not in the ArbCom mandate. It should not be in their power.


 * Why? Because policy and guidelines are a community decision.  ArbCom is nothing other than a final committee to determine the correct application of policy.  If a policy can't get consensus in its current state, the only things that can happen are: 1) It is revised until consensus is gained, 2) It is thrown out, or 3) Jimbo or the Wikipedia legal team put the policy in because it has to be there, to protect Wikipedia's legal status.  Nothing to do with ArbCom.


 * This is the way it should be. Wikipedia is neither a democracy, with elected officials determining rules, nor is it a dictatorship, with one person handing down the law.  It's kind of a loosely-managed anarchy, where the community determines internal behaviour, with occasional intercessions from on high to ensure that external concerns are met.

2. Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?


 * It does not. It should not.  Why not?  Because policy decisions are not made by ArbCom.

3. Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?


 * I'm afraid I can't recall an example of the ArbCom saying this, and I've gone through most of the old decisions. However, of course someone's previous contributions must be taken into account.  I will rant about this lower down your questions, but if someone has made virtually no edits other than objectionable material or personal attacks, then they will be seen as solely involved in Wikipeda for that reason, as they have shown no other intentions.  Their net worth to Wikipedia has been negative.


 * If someone has 1,500 good edits, and then makes a vile personal attack, then clearly they are not on Wikipedia to make personal attacks and cause trouble, so of course that would be taken into account. Their net value remains positive.  Seniority or experience does not, however, give anyone a free pass.  As soon as your presence on Wikipedia has a deleterious effect, are causing more problems than you solve, and do not look likely to change, you should be removed from Wikipedia, for as much time as is deemed necessary to prevent further harm to the encyclopaedia, and for you to become of positive value to the encyclopaedia again.

4. If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.


 * First, note I don't agree with the above point. It is not a tough question, as it relies on a fallacy.  I'm going to embolden the particularly pertinent points.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.  An encyclopaedia is made up of articles, and so the chief, single, main, over-riding, ultimate, sole, only priority, is creating better articles.


 * Everything else, the ArbCom, administration, AFD, RFA, Esperanza, whatever - everything must be - and is - a support system for creating a better encyclopaedia. Every policy and every guideline Wikipedia has is created with that in mind.  Anything that does not assist us to build a better encyclopaedia, either directly or indirectly, should be excised from Wikipedia, as soon as possible.


 * However, there is a fallacy. Sound administration leads to better articles.  An ArbCom of sensible and fair community members leads to better articles.  AFD leads to better quality control, which leads to better articles.  And writing good articles leads to, well, better articles.  Writing good articles is the end product of a number of 'support systems', of which  amongst them is administration.  You cannot compare them, as they are the same process.  It does not matter whether an individual chooses to concentrate on administration, or concentrate on writing.  What matters is that the community, as a whole, benefits from both these things.  Both things lead to better articles.  They are of equal worth, as they accomplish the same goal.  The ArbCom should not, must not, and do not differentiate between what area of volunteering in Wikipedia is most useful.  All areas are equally useful, as those which are not useful, and do not contribute to a better encyclopaedia, must be removed.    Proto ::  type  14:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

6. While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)


 * There's not many. Here's one - Requests_for_arbitration/GreekWarrior.  GreekWarrior, who was clearly disruptive, and after apologising and promising to never troll again, whilst under ArbCom investigation, promptly made a sockpuppet to carry on his racism and vandalism.  He should have been permanently banned.  I appreciate ArbCom do this very, very rarely, presferring a long term ban with an expiry date, but in this instance, it is pointless, as the user is clearly of no worth to Wikipedia.  Arbcom should have refused to listen to the case, and allowed the community to indef ban the user.  Proto ::  type  14:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

7. It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?


 * 'Right', 'acceptable' or 'wrong'. Not a full set of choices.  The answer is super secret hidden answer #4, 'irrelevant'.  Fred clearly has the talent to write the initial decisions, and suggests many remedies.  If elected, I plan to do nothing about that.  Fred writing the majority of initial findings of fact works.  If he were bad at it, he would not be allowed to do it.  Proto ::  type  14:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

8. For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom? AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't care. It's nothing to with being an administrator, or a non-administrator.  Being an administrator is purely, and solely, having a little box ticked somewhere on the server marked 'sysop'.  All being an administrator gives you is a couple of extra buttons; delete, view deleted history, protect, and block.  None of these buttons magically confer better sense, or improved judgement.  If someone's RFA passes on 10 June - does that mean on 9 June they were not as valuable a contributor?  No.  Sound judgement and fairness are skills one can pick up from outside Wikipedia.  Those, commensurate with the procedural and policy experience gained from collaborating with your fellow users on Wikipedia for a decent amount of time, are the skills required to be on the Arbitration Committee.  You don't need sysop status to acquire them - it's just a few extra tools.  It is irrelevant whether the ArbCom were made up of all administrators, made up entirely of non-administrators, or a combination.  What matters is that the people on the Committe understand the policy and guidelines they are required to apply, in some pretty technical cases, and that they are competent, unbiased, even-handed and just.  Whilst those are useful skills for everyone, 'being an admin' must be neither a pre-requisite  - nor a disqualifier - from participation on ArbCom.


 * Thanks for some good, tough questions.

Question from Dfrg.msc
In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.m s c 1. 2 . Editor Review 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Common sense and dedication. Proto ::  type  21:56, 2 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. -- Cyde Weys 20:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'd say that you ultimately reserve the right to excercise your vote. It should be already understood by all respected and high-esteemed candidates that at the end of this elections, there should no hard feelings regardless of supports or opposes. As from my observation at the January elections, hard feelings usually come not from the votes, but from the comments that are associated with the votes. Henceforth, I think restaining to comment in your vote is the best way to go. - Good luck and best regards, Mailer Diablo 21:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't be voting or commenting upon any of the other candidates. Wouldn't be the proper thing to do. Proto ::  type  22:17, 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".


 * If I'm not elected, I will carry on as I have for the past 18 months.

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]]?


 * That's four questions. 1) I don't think anything about it, really.  It's a means to an end - appointing new arbitrators.  2) I pledged further above not to comment, but I don't see any one of them doing a bad job.  3) I really don't think anything about them.  4) My campaign consisted of me volunteering my name and answering these questions.  I am happy with all my answers.

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.


 * Nothing. I am invincible!

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.


 * What actions are you talking about?

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.


 * Stick? What stick?

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.


 * I want do Wikipedia stuff.

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 10:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that you asked three questions, here's the three answers. 1) Yes.  2) It's fine.  3) The ArbCom don't make content decisions.   Proto ::  ►  00:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Zoe
What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You ask for my feeling, rather than my opinion on what should take place. My feeling is that I really don't care if MONGO is desysopped.  He's been given enough chances already, and has abjectly failed to learn from them.   The whole thing has been coming for months.  If it hadn't have been this occasion, given his track record, it would have happened sooner or later.  My opinion is that the current incident, on its own, is not sufficient for such a severe sanction.  Given his history, however, I can understand why it is taking place.  I am aware that I'm in the minority having that kind of opinion ...  Proto ::  ►  00:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)