Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Kelapstick/Questions

Individual questions
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

Questions from Gerda Arendt
Thank you for stepping forward!


 * --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from Worm That Turned

 * Thanks for the answer Kelapstick, and best of luck. WormTT(talk) 09:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer Kelapstick, and best of luck. WormTT(talk) 09:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Guerillero
Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. Many of these questions are sourced from actual cases, discussions, and problems over the past year. Enjoy!

Questions from GrammarFascist

 * Thanks for responding, . For the record, I consider this more an election than a job application situation (though you're welcome to disagree) and political candidates' demographic markers are usually considered fair game in elections, even, I think, in Canada. But again, your declining to answer that question directly is not going to be held against you. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 00:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, . For the record, I consider this more an election than a job application situation (though you're welcome to disagree) and political candidates' demographic markers are usually considered fair game in elections, even, I think, in Canada. But again, your declining to answer that question directly is not going to be held against you. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 00:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, . For the record, I consider this more an election than a job application situation (though you're welcome to disagree) and political candidates' demographic markers are usually considered fair game in elections, even, I think, in Canada. But again, your declining to answer that question directly is not going to be held against you. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 00:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Question from Brustopher
Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on WP:OUTING. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.

Questions from Antony–22

 * Because it came up elsewhere, I'd like to clarify that this question does not cover the proposed or actual decision, but about how you would help a reporter understand what happened before the case was filed. I'm not sure if this affects your answer at all, but I wanted to be sure to make the same clarification to everyone. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, it does not affect my response. It should be noted that I am not a media representative for Wikipedia, the WMF, nor do I intend to be one for the Arbitration Committee, should I be elected.  Therefore I will not be writing any primers for the press.  Doing so seems like a bad idea, in my opinion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it came up elsewhere, I'd like to clarify that this question does not cover the proposed or actual decision, but about how you would help a reporter understand what happened before the case was filed. I'm not sure if this affects your answer at all, but I wanted to be sure to make the same clarification to everyone. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, it does not affect my response. It should be noted that I am not a media representative for Wikipedia, the WMF, nor do I intend to be one for the Arbitration Committee, should I be elected.  Therefore I will not be writing any primers for the press.  Doing so seems like a bad idea, in my opinion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, it does not affect my response. It should be noted that I am not a media representative for Wikipedia, the WMF, nor do I intend to be one for the Arbitration Committee, should I be elected.  Therefore I will not be writing any primers for the press.  Doing so seems like a bad idea, in my opinion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)



Question from User:Beyond My Ken

 * Thank you for the quick response. Were I King of Wikipedia, one thing I would do is make everyone read Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious by Gerd Gigerenzer and Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcolm Gladwell, both of which explain why "gut feelings" are often more reliable than other more traditional forms of decision making. Certainly, we don't want to jump to errant conclusions based on what some unknown editor says, but, really, some account needs to be taken when a long-term editor, especially one with a track record for identifying socks, says "This doesn't feel right to me."  We can then proceed cautiously, but we should still proceed to look into the situation.
 * Thank you for the quick response. Were I King of Wikipedia, one thing I would do is make everyone read Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious by Gerd Gigerenzer and Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcolm Gladwell, both of which explain why "gut feelings" are often more reliable than other more traditional forms of decision making. Certainly, we don't want to jump to errant conclusions based on what some unknown editor says, but, really, some account needs to be taken when a long-term editor, especially one with a track record for identifying socks, says "This doesn't feel right to me."  We can then proceed cautiously, but we should still proceed to look into the situation.

Question from Brustopher
Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on WP:OUTING. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.
 * Facepalm3.svg Facepalm Erm... This was totally meant to be a test of your memory. Yeah that's what it was... Congratulations, you passed! --Brustopher (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Facepalm3.svg Facepalm Erm... This was totally meant to be a test of your memory. Yeah that's what it was... Congratulations, you passed! --Brustopher (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Facepalm3.svg Facepalm Erm... This was totally meant to be a test of your memory. Yeah that's what it was... Congratulations, you passed! --Brustopher (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Ryk72
Thank you for stepping forward; your commitment to serving the community is greatly appreciated.

Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.

Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from Dcs002

 * Sorry this is so long, but there seems to be a few fundamental misunderstandings, and I am brevity-impaired :( To clarify: Yes, WMF is privately owned, but we present our work product as this free encyclopedia created by ordinary people. Coca Cola is not an all-volunteer organization that invites anyone in the world to modify the flavor of their product. We editors make the product using our own intellect and judgement, not theirs. We are in a murky middle ground, like an academic institution. Non-public colleges and universities must develop policies regarding free speech and academic freedom. It cannot be assumed, nor can it be ignored if they wish to attract and retain quality faculty and foster a true search for knowledge. Academic advancement requires an environment in which radical ideas can be discussed openly and freely. Wikipedia is an academic endeavor. A blunt rejection of free speech in an academic environment gives me chills, moreso because I know it's true.
 * Sorry this is so long, but there seems to be a few fundamental misunderstandings, and I am brevity-impaired :( To clarify: Yes, WMF is privately owned, but we present our work product as this free encyclopedia created by ordinary people. Coca Cola is not an all-volunteer organization that invites anyone in the world to modify the flavor of their product. We editors make the product using our own intellect and judgement, not theirs. We are in a murky middle ground, like an academic institution. Non-public colleges and universities must develop policies regarding free speech and academic freedom. It cannot be assumed, nor can it be ignored if they wish to attract and retain quality faculty and foster a true search for knowledge. Academic advancement requires an environment in which radical ideas can be discussed openly and freely. Wikipedia is an academic endeavor. A blunt rejection of free speech in an academic environment gives me chills, moreso because I know it's true.


 * This is where the right to respectfully disagree comes in - if my disagreement is seen as radical or unpopular, will it be treated fairly? There is no guarantee of that. Right now, as you pointed out, I do not have the right to say anything controversial. "Free speech has never been a right guaranteed to anyone on any WMF project." I have no right to say anything at all. Without those rights, we can only say that we have created an encyclopedia that Jimbo Wales and WMF have not rejected, not one that truly represents a free consensus of this remarkably diverse, worldwide group of talented editors who work for free. We have Jimbo's word that he'll be hands-off. (That hasn't always been the case though.) That does not constitute freedom of speech, nor are there any guarantees of any academic freedom in the future. I think right now the plan upon Jimbo's death is to give the issue to ArbCom. Still no guarantees there. (Are you ready to take on that task of reconstituting WP? It could be your job if Jimbo dies during your term.)


 * Speech that is not banned might or might not be permitted (my friend who grew up in Franco's Spain will tell you the difference), but it is not free as long as there is no guarantee that it is free. (It's part of the US constitution - anything not prohibited is a right.) I am talking about a starting assumption that all speech and all ideas may be expressed here without fear of sanctions, and then listing the exceptions and limits (e.g., as long as it is related to the editor's honest effort to make a better encyclopedia, as long as it is not abusive or disruptive, etc.). That's as opposed to saying there is no free speech here, but you may say X, Y, and Z, but only in the context of Q, and we might change our minds about that... The default position is freedom, not prohibition. The cartoon you linked assumes I have freedom of speech, which, as you said, I do not. Dcs002 (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)