Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/Scottywong/Questions

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

Per WP:ACERFC2020, starting this year there is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

Questions from Kudpung
I'm asking all  candidates the same questions.


 * Thank you for  your  thoughtful  answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from A7V2
I am asking the same questions to all candidates.

Questions from StraussInTheHouse
While retention of productive editors and administrators is rightly considered important for the continuation of the project, the conduct of all editors, especially trusted users such as administrators is also rightly considered important for the retention of other users. I consider these two issues which are, unfortunately, often intertwined to be the most pressing types of issues to the project which ArbCom tends to deal with. I am therefore asking all of the candidates the same questions irrespective of whether they are a former Arbitrator. Many thanks and all the best with the election!  SITH   (talk)   11:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answers,, no follow-ups.   SITH   (talk)   00:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answers,, no follow-ups.   SITH   (talk)   00:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answers,, no follow-ups.   SITH   (talk)   00:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from The Land




Questions from Epiphyllumlover

 * I will explain my question more in hopes that you can answer it. For an overview of Turchin's theory, see Can History Predict the Future? in The Atlantic.
 * I will explain my question more in hopes that you can answer it. For an overview of Turchin's theory, see Can History Predict the Future? in The Atlantic.


 * His theory posits that there are too many highly educated/qualified people for them to play ordinary, high-ranking roles in developed countries. As a result, more of them turn into counter-elites. Conflict increases as counter-elites attempt to get the commoners to revolt against the elite. An obvious outlet for them is Wikipedia.


 * Wikipedia in turn has its own elites--especially admins who got in early on. The counter-elites are the unblockables and the admins who support them.


 * One possibility is that the pattern discussed in the "Mapping Wikipedia" could be due to elite class people in particular states editing Wikipedia in an increased amount; the under-represented areas, were they to assert themselves more on Wikipedia, would quickly be considered counter-elite and face opposition from the existing elite on Wikipedia.


 * The pattern described in "The left-wing bias of Wikipedia" indicates that the fault lines on Wikipedia are similar to the ones in developed countries as a whole.


 * So as for my question--do you have a similar assessment of the situation, is it lacking in certain ways, or even flat-out wrong?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In order to demonstrate that this questionable theory applies to Wikipedia (and I have serious doubts that it even applies to America), you'd have to show that there is an abundance of editors who are qualified to be admins, and a lack of available admin positions to be filled. Neither of these appear to be true. Qualified candidates pass RfA regularly and become admins. There is nothing stopping qualified editors from attempting an RfA (except for how brutal of a process it can sometimes be), and there is no limit imposed on the number of admins that Wikipedia can have. It's not like we have to wait for an admin to resign before an "admin slot" becomes available for someone else to fill. Sure, there are editors who want to be admins but have not been successful at RfA, but RfA candidates fail because they are judged to be unqualified for the position, not because there is a limit on how many "elites" Wikipedia can support. And, long-time editors who have had unsuccessful RfAs are understandably likely to have some bad feelings about that experience (I should know; my first RfA was unsuccessful), and those bad feelings might even grow into a desire to "revolt against the ruling elite class". But none of this has anything to do with WP having too many qualified editors and not enough high-ranking roles for them; it's simply people who are justifiably resentful of being rejected by the community. To be frank, my opinion is that thinking of Wikipedia in terms of "elites vs. counter-elites" is an unhelpful battleground mentality. I don't think WP would benefit from editors forming political parties and jockeying for power. Instead of looking for ways to find the myriad "fault lines" that divide editors, we should be looking for ways to fill in those cracks so that editors from all walks of life can participate in a collegial environment. ‑Scottywong | [confess] ||  19:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the indefinite number of admin slots, and indefinite size of Wikipedia helps guard against Turchin-style elite overproduction. There is another subset of editors who have zero hope of achieving an RfA, so they don't even try. Yet becoming an unblockable is still within reach. Also the increased degree of rules & enforcement mechanisms in the current Wikipedia as opposed to the early Wikipedia could still serve as a stereotype threat type mechanism, whereby editors branded as rule-breakers embrace the identity and develop their skills until they become unblockables.


 * Turchin thinks that certain policy decisions can reduce elite overpopulation to prevent a counter-elite from gaining traction. On Wikipedia, one possibility could be a system where a randomly chosen jury serves as the audience for an RfA, allowing for easier adminship. ArbCom's size could be increased. Also, the website could be divided into multiple encyclopedias--such as one for controversial topics and one for topics which have seen little fighting. This would open up more elite-level leadership roles. There may be other possibilities.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Instant Comma

 * Thank you! Instant Comma (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Instant Comma (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Paradise Chronicle


Thats ok, I was just trying to raise awareness about the most designated terrorist organization in the world who sexually subdued women on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Maybe some admin was made aware since not a single admin is looking into this yet.

Question from TRM
It was a theoretical question which you seem to have taken personally. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Robert McClenon
Being asked of all candidates