Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/NE Ent/Questions

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

Questions from Drmies
Thank you for running, Ent--we know Ents don't run gladly and only of necessity.

Questions from Gerda Arendt
Thank you for stepping forward!
 * Imagine it was, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "As WP:INFOBOXUSE provides no policy preference for inclusion or exclusion, per the closing discussion instructions, I must go by the position with "the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it." Seeing ~four editors who support removing it and two suggesting including it, the current consensus is for removal. Given the usually small number of editors participating in this discussion, the should be no prejudice against revisiting the discussion in the near future." NE Ent 22:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we look at the same discussion, of 2015, which asked restore or not? The infobox was removed in 2013, before the related arb case, on a "consensus" of 4:2. Compare Gianni Schicchi, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I was looking at, the 2013 discussion. I didn't realize there was more than one on the page, and stopping looking when I found that one. NE Ent 17:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You wanna play? - If you don't want to answer this, you might comment on my first line, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You wanna play? - If you don't want to answer this, you might comment on my first line, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 22 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!

Question from Smallbones


Answer:  Not a well thought out question, for a few reasons.

First of all, Wikipedia is not "starting to" have a reputation; Tim Simonite's far superior Technology Review piece noted, "The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage." (Note also he properly characterizes en-wiki as "leaderless collection of volunteers" so if anyone thinks arbcom is a solution to community wide problems they're mistaken.)

Secondly, as I clearly stated in my candidate statement, I care about a) the encyclopedia as a whole, and b) the editors who write it, so to the extent bullying affects editors I care about it, but not necessary more than anything else which negatively impacts the editing experience.

Finally, as previously explained at Founder talk: If Smallbones is concerned with bullying, their first step should be to stop acting like a bully. WP:BANREVERT says to remove comments, and if Smallbones was simply removing edits by those-who-have-sorta-talkpage-banned-by-Jimbo -- preferrably with a neutral edit summary --I'd be supportive. Rather, they replace the comments with statements in the form of "Removed comment by Naughty, signed Smallbones( smalltalk )," which reads like grandstanding "Look at me removing comments from him, who is bad person, inferior to us enlightened folk!" nonsense. NE Ent 9:39 am, 14 November 2015, last Saturday (7 days ago) (UTC−5) Rather than heeding such obliviously good advice, they then doubled down on the hypocrisy by justifying their bullying by calling the other editor "a troll".

To answer the question, if elected, I'd be happy to vote to site ban anyone who consistently engages in bullying behavior, e.g. calling other editors in trolls. NE Ent 22:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from Yash!
Before I get into specific examples, let me make it perfectly clear that, regardless if I'm elected to Arbcom 2016 or not, I fully expect it will issue bad decisions. The very nature of arbcom cases is that if good solutions to problems existed, they wouldn't be arbcom cases; there should be no expectation the committee is in any way smarter to the community, it's just assumed to pick a reasonable "least bad" solution. A couple indicators of poor solutions are the subsequent need for clarifications from the enforcement community, or failure to uphold Wikipedia policy.
 * An example of the former is the automation case which prohibited an editor from using "automation" -- whatever that is. Please see one of my prior comments.
 * An example of the latter was Infoboxes, which endorsed the concept of article ownership contrary to policy: the WP:INFOBOXUSE guideline makes no reference to authorship to determine placement of an infobox. NE Ent 02:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from User:Beyond My Ken
I've already referenced WP:The Committee in explaining the duality of the committee's concurrent unimportance / importance. The perceived need to spam registered content editors who have better things to do than get involved in wiki-politics is also indicative. (Incidentally, I consider the best possible editor(s) someone like who just chugs along, no account, no drama, no ANI threads...). So why enter a race with only two bad outcomes? I could lose, or worse, I could "win." If admining is "the mop," the committee has got to be "shovel out the septic tank."

The committee's potential to do good is limited. This is not tragic, is an affirmation the community which built a 5,000,000 article 'pedia doesn't really need much "help" or "supervision." Arbcom has ability to do harm, however. First by discouraging the morale of editors observing its machinations when it behaves poorly. Secondly, because the outside often doesn't really grok how wikipedia works, arbcom is perceived as managing or directing -- the CEO of en-wiki when it's really just the tough-job janitors.

A long time arbitrator has noted about me "With their commentary they have on several occasions corrected the committee's course for the better." While flattering, of course, more importantly here it reflects favorably on past arbcoms who were receptive to feedback. Note I'm not saying I was smarter than those committees; without the burdens of responsibility the committee has, I was able to focus my wiki-time on one or two specific aspects of cases the committee had not had brought to their attention.

For the sake of the project, an arbcom committee should be:
 * Minimalist
 * Deliberate
 * Thoughtful
 * Strong, Steadfast

Unfortunately, as of late arbcom has been none of these. In recent months I've observed:
 * A hasty, non-emergency desysop motions, essentially due to mob rule -- eventually declined, but serious discussion about possibly doing it went on too long and too far. (Note: given sufficient time for reason to sink in, the editor saw the writing on the wall and resigned.)

The debacle of AE2
 * Due to a well intentioned but poorly thought out prior sanction, the committee was embarrassed by an administrator intentionally burning her sysop bit.
 * Another hasty, non-emergency desysop.
 * Ridiculous case management -- repeatedly drawing lines in the sand, e.g. only post evidence about parties, no thread conversation, hatting critical remarks, and then rewarding, rather than enforcing such restrictions.
 * The one non-party added following allegedly prohibited evidence stands out not for their snark, which is banally common in Wikipedia:: spaces, but their target: the committee itself.
 * The "no threaded" conversation simply resulted in one case of threading-by-pinging by two editors throwing mud at each other, in some cases be refactoring, in other cases being iar'd.
 * Passing remedies with titles such as "At wit's end" -- dealing with the tough cases is your job, committee, and "Reinstating a sanction reversed out of process," which reads like a pathetic plea to get an admin to reblock Eric Corbett, which hasn't happened.

A committee which is talks overly tough but acts weak does not inspire confidence.

When I was a high school teacher, occasionally I'd have a student volunteer to attempt a task and fail miserably. When the inevitable snark and comments from other students started, rather than correct them directly, I'd simply read "The Man in the Arena" by Theodore Roosevelt. At this point, continued arbcom criticism from me strikes me as being more useless wiki-noise than something useful, and the community would be right to call me out unless I was willing to step up and offer to serve myself.

You should not vote for me because I'm best candidate, because I'm not. But in a field filled with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS candidates and nine open slots, I'm asking for your vote. I've a demonstrated track record as team player; although I may strenuously argue a point, e.g prohibiting IPs from filing IP requests, once a consensus is reached I get onboard and support it. NE Ent 23:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from GrammarFascist



 * Thanks for responding, . — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 01:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, . — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 01:44, 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 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.' 15:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)