Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Seraphimblade/Questions

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

Individual questions
Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

Questions from Rschen7754
I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.



Thank you. Rschen7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions by Gerda Arendt
Thank you for volunteering.

Thank you, passed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions from Collect
I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter four were actually general questions asked in 2012, which I asked be used again.



Thank you. Collect (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Question by Wizardman
I am shocked that this question hasn’t been asked above, as I feel it is simple yet says a great deal about any candidate. No wrong answer to this question aside from “I don’t know”.

Question from Piotrus
(Note borrowed from Rschen7754): The questions are similar to those I asked in 2012. If you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.



Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Question from User:Slp1

 * Thank you for being honest in your answer. I am disappointed by it, obviously. Do you really still stand by your position that unless there is a consensus to exclude BLP material, it should be included?  Do you really think that if something is verifiable we have no duties as editors to "avoid participating in or prolonging the victimization" (amongst other things)? These views fly in the face of our BLP policy - and as you yourself said, the consensus of WP editors in how BLP is interpreted and applied.  WP's BLP policy and responsibilities goes way beyond your summary of it- that we cannot write unverifiable material or out private or semi-private material.  But as I said, I thank you for being upfront in your answer; I think it is important that those considering your candidacy know your position on these matters.    Slp1 (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On the specific matter of exclusion vs. inclusion, I think the consensus there has solidified over the past few years that exclusion is the default. That was not nearly so settled a matter at the time, but now it is. Ultimately, as an administrator or arbitrator, it's incumbent upon one to uphold community consensus, regardless of whether or not one personally agrees with that consensus, and I have as an admin closed discussions where the consensus was clear but I didn't really agree. On the other hand, as a member of the community participating in a discussion, I will express what I personally think. My view will not always be the one that ultimately gains consensus, and one who cannot accept that probably shouldn't participate here at all. This is a group collaborative project, and that means sometimes one will find oneself holding a view that is not ultimately how the community wants to go.
 * You've somewhat misrepresented my views on BLP, as well, in your followup. I did not say or imply that we had no duty whatsoever, and of course I don't think that. If we post material from questionable sources or go digging through semi-public records to make information much more visible than it already is, we could indeed do harm that had not been done before. That would be unacceptable and I've never supported that. I did say we have the duty to consider both the questions of "Given how widely the information is already available, would we in fact be publicizing information that is currently largely private?" and "What have the best, most reliable sources seen and done as the ethical thing to do in this case?" I am very hesitant to substitute our views for those of the very best sources. I would also note that I was far from the only experienced editor to take the position which I did in that case. You're welcome to disagree, you did, and we discussed the matter. That's how we work those things out. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You've somewhat misrepresented my views on BLP, as well, in your followup. I did not say or imply that we had no duty whatsoever, and of course I don't think that. If we post material from questionable sources or go digging through semi-public records to make information much more visible than it already is, we could indeed do harm that had not been done before. That would be unacceptable and I've never supported that. I did say we have the duty to consider both the questions of "Given how widely the information is already available, would we in fact be publicizing information that is currently largely private?" and "What have the best, most reliable sources seen and done as the ethical thing to do in this case?" I am very hesitant to substitute our views for those of the very best sources. I would also note that I was far from the only experienced editor to take the position which I did in that case. You're welcome to disagree, you did, and we discussed the matter. That's how we work those things out. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Question from User:HectorMoffet
The number of Active Editors on EnWP has been in decline since 2007.

This decline has been documented extensively:
 * In our own "Editor Trends Study"
 * In popular media ("Nobody wants to edit Wikipedia anymore")
 * In scholarly literature ("How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline")

This raises several questions:



Question from Carrite

 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Question from user:Ykantor


2