Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Elen of the Roads/Questions

Questions from Lar

 * Note to readers:
 * This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2010/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and the year before and modified to fit changes in circumstance.


 * Notes to respondents:
 * In some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so.
 * Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.
 * It is also Not Helpful to answer "yes, yes, no, yes" (because you are expecting people to count on their fingers which answers go with which questions...) go ahead and intersperse your answers. We'll know it was you. No need to sign each part unless you want us to know which parts you answered when.
 * For those of you that ran last year (or the year before, etc.), feel free to cut and paste a previous year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded so watch out for that.
 * Where a question overlaps one of the standard questions I have tried to note that and explain what elaboration is desired.


 * The questions

'''#Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?''' '''#What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)''' Violet. It just is. It's been violet for 40 years, so I don't think it's going to change now.
 * 1) '''Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
 * d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - a trial, which ended up being called WP:Pending changes instead. Please comment on the trial results as they specifically relate to the BLP problem. (there is another question about revisions generally) Would you do anything different in the actual implementation?
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.'''
 * I think we still have problems. We create too many articles about people who are really marginal for notability (very minor sportspeople, daytime cable news anchors, people caught up in a news story). My own view is that a no consensus BLP AfD should default to delete, and that there should be a clear mechanism by which the subject of an article can ask that it be nominated for deletion.  I don't think they should just be able to ask and have it deleted without a discussion, but they should be able to ask and have it listed at AfD.
 * As regards protection, I see no reason not to semi protect articles where a high proportion of IP edits are vandalism. That's what its there for. Low footfall articles are a problem as well - I would favour semiprotection if it is accompanied by the clearest guidance for IP editors in how to get the protection lifted/their edit made, as otherwise I fear we risk losing contributors. I thought I would support Flagged Revs (and I still support the concept), but the Pending changes trial was such a dog's breakfast that I would want to see some thoroughly thought through and established policies before we go forward. (See below under q4)
 * 1) '''Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.'''
 * Note: this question has some overlap with #5 and #6 in the general set but goes farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
 * Can I refer you to my answer to question 5 on 'the other side of the page'. Any decision made by Arbcom with respect to what to do about BLPs of the dubiously notable would be a matter of policy. It would become a matter of content when considering whether a particular BLP was dubiously notable, which is why I prefer a mechanism for referral to a deletion process, rather than a right to outright deletion, as it puts the content decision in its proper place which is with the community.
 * The discussion on BLPs plainly isn't finished, and the community still has input to make. I don't think it has approached a consensus as to what solutions to deploy - come to that, I don't think we've finished with the collation of what solutions might be tried. I know it's an old saw that if you can't decide what to do, commission more research, but I think part of the reason we are flapping around is that we don't have a clear enough idea of where the problem is, what the scale is, what the nature is.  Yes, there are loads of unreferenced BLP stubs. Are these a major problem? Are edits to little watched articles a major problem? Is vandalism of the articles of the famous a major problem? Is there a major problem with articles being edited by friends/enemies/business rivals/ex spouses of the subject?  I'd like to have that clearer picture, although I can't see it being in the terms of reference of Arbcom to 'commission' it.
 * 1) It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? Consider the controversy around some election provisions... we had an RfC on the topic early this year, but by the election we still didn't have closure on some open questions. Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
 * Note: there may possibly be some overlap with #7 and #8 in the general set but it's really a different tack. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
 * I do disagree. We outgrew the size of organisation that can manage itself by pure consensus within a couple of months of starting up. Since then, the project has been on a continual quest to retain forms of consensus in its decision making processes, while also attempting to formulate decision making processes that actually work - whether or not these include consensus. We've had some stunning fails - the election where nobody won for example, signaled an urgent need for more thought. But we also have some successes - the discretionary sanctions I covered in my response to Shooterwalkerer over the page have provided the impetus for much better targeted community involvement in dealing with disruptive editors.
 * 1) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions/Pending Changes. What did you think of the trial? Should we ultimately implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing? 
 * A:MHO the trial was a mess, although in the long run that's probably not a bad thing in one way, as it uncovered a lot of gaps. In another way, it did make it look as if the supporters were making it up as they went along, which is a bad thing. I have to admit that before the trial ran, I did not understand why anyone would oppose Flagged revisions.  Now I can see that there are a number of objections on principle (contrary to the 'anyone can edit' principle) and on practicalities. I don't think it's irretrievable, but before we go back the practicalities have to be spot-on (that interface sucked - I could never work out what to do with it, there was no clarity as to how or why reviewer rights were awarded or removed, I don't think people ever understood what you could and couldn't revert using the interface, etc).  We have to think through the policy  - why could you revert 'J-Lo was originally called Glenda' if you thought it was vandalism, but not if you thought it was unsourced BLP, what are we trying to achieve here.  Only then is it possible to tackle the rooted objectors.
 * There will be a point at which Arbcom will have a role, but I don't think its clear yet what that will be, as it will arise when the issue can become a subject of arbitration (the committee having no vested powers outside of that scope).
 * 1) '''Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from 2008 in that it's more extensive)
 * f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
 * g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from 2008)'''
 * Note: this ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
 * I think it is vital that we retain the ability to edit anonymously/pseudonymously. A practical consideration would be how on earth would we check that we had the real Professor Pinkle Purr, a philosophical one would be how would we prevent Prof Purr having a higher status on wikipedia that Miss Ann Shopgirl, on the basis of who he is in real life, rather than based on his edits. In terms of outing - or rather removing information that was disclosed without thought, I do not see why we should be obliged to retain personal information on Miss Shopgirl that she posted without thinking about it, and which is now concerning her. At the same time, I've said on the other side of the page that I think persistently referring to information that a user has asked to be removed is harassment, not outing.
 * with regard to (d)(and (g)) - if Prof Purr has put into his blog that he edits wikipedia under the username Pinkle, then he's plainly comfortable with revealing it, and cannot protest if for example another editor is alleging that he is promoting his own book, and points to the blog for evidence. At the other extreme, if Prof Purr is being stalked by a cybercreep who is publishing personal information, smears and lies about them on the web, then there is a horribly high chance that the user posting the link on wikipedia is the same cybercreep, and indefblocking/oversighting would be an appropriate response, even if it is bolting the stable door after the horse has left the building. In a case of that seriousness, I would ban the editor even if they had not actually outed Purr on wikipedia (assuming I had enough evidence that the wikipedia editor was the cyberstalker), because it would be impossible for Purr to feel safe while editing in this extreme circumstance.  Clearly there are shades in between these two extremes, where different actions may be more appropriate.
 * As to (f), this is a concern for all social networking sites as well, for all those sites where you can research and create a family tree online, for gaming sites and chatrooms. I'm not sure it's the role of the Foundation to educate people about online dangers, any more than it is for the owners of Rootsweb and Ancestry, and in many ways much less than the providers of Second Life and Facebook.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * '''a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?'''
 * Note: this also ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
 * As I said above, I don't think it is any more the responsibility of WMF to educate people about online dangers than it is the owners of Myspace and Livejournal. If someone is stalked online, any responsible site should co-operate with the appropriate authorities. If someone is being stalked/victimised on wikipedia, then there are clearly actions that can be taken - articles can be protected, perps can be blocked, users can have personal info removed, talkpages protected, be assisted to create a fresh account if desired.  What Wikipedia can do is limited though - stalkers can sock, and find other ways to continue to harass their victim.  The chances are that wikipedia is only part of a network of harassing behaviour.
 * Stalking and reviewing edits are clearly different. Any user has the right to review any other users edits - they are a matter of public record.  The problem comes from the behaviour of the 'stalker' once they have looked at the other user's edits.  Turning up at articles to continue abusive behaviour is stalking/hounding/harassment, reporting repeat copyvios is not.
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterized as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * The policy/consensus here is that all edits by a socking banned editor may be removed on sight. It was agreed that there was nothing to stop another editor examining the edit and 'adopting' it - it's one of the times when proxying is acceptable. If someone is making large numbers of good edits, then it may be time to see if the community is willing to accept them back. On the other hand, there's a particularly nasty character in the long term abuse folder who turns up, makes what seem like a lot of good edits, then starts the disruption.  That one needs to be blocked immediately - it's never worth what they contribute.  Same for the serial socker who has just caused chaos in a set of Eng Lit articles - the good content inevitably turns out to be copvios or some such.
 * 1) '''What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not (in each case)?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?'''
 * There is a sense in which "its a free internet" applies, and I can see no mechanism by which individual editors could or should be prevented from expressing their opinion elsewhere on the web, if it makes them feel better or they feel it accomplishes something. Come to that, I can't think of any compelling reason why discussion should only take place on wiki.
 * A great many forums have 'closed areas' where those privileged to receive admission gather to bitch about the rest. I have never liked such places. I don't have an account on wikipedia review because it looks like the same kind of place.  I don't have a blog, or any other kind of website where I talk about wikipedia. That's just me.
 * Working IRL in an area where the appearance of probity is essential (that's why the elected members and the chief officers drink in different pubs), I would hold the view that a person acting as an Arbitrator would need to be very careful if they were also a member of a site such as WR, as there will inevitably be fingerpointing. People will make the connection - and no, I don't think that identifying that User:Chimpsteaparty posts on WR under the username Bold Sir Jasper is outing. Outing would be revealing that Bold Sir Jasper/Chimpsteaparty is actually Miss Ann Shopgirl of Maida Vale.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * My opinion-that battle was lost a long time ago. The Athenians drew officeholders by lot, had them work in teams, and rotated them regularly, to avoid precisely this phenomenon. Wikipedia's Solon did not opt for the same practice, rather we have admins for life selected by an open ballot practice. If by vested contributors you mean editors who create a lot of content but are bolshie, then you probably need to say that, because that's not what the Meatball is talking about.
 * Just had occasion to revisit the RfAR for Ottava Rima, and reminded myself that the committee of the day specifically used the term [Vested contributors] with the observation "However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy, not even from highly experienced, knowledgeable editors who produce quality content." On that basis, it is clear that the committee of the time believed that Ottava qualified as a vested contributor (else why say it) on the basis of his contributions. I don't think the term is the correct one, and I don't think the issue is the same as the problem of a vested contributor (of whom I have met a sufficient sample in other organisations).  Ottava's problem is that he was a bully, not that he was a vested contributor.  And on the other side of that coin, there are editors out there who don't like knowledgeable, highly productive editors, and who are convinced that it is anti-Wikipedia to actually know anything about the articles you edit (someone actually said that in a discussion once - I wish I could find the diff)
 * Stalking and reviewing edits are clearly different. Any user has the right to review any other users edits - they are a matter of public record.  The problem comes from the behaviour of the 'stalker' once they have looked at the other user's edits.  Turning up at articles to continue abusive behaviour is stalking/hounding/harassment, reporting repeat copyvios is not.
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterized as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * The policy/consensus here is that all edits by a socking banned editor may be removed on sight. It was agreed that there was nothing to stop another editor examining the edit and 'adopting' it - it's one of the times when proxying is acceptable. If someone is making large numbers of good edits, then it may be time to see if the community is willing to accept them back. On the other hand, there's a particularly nasty character in the long term abuse folder who turns up, makes what seem like a lot of good edits, then starts the disruption.  That one needs to be blocked immediately - it's never worth what they contribute.  Same for the serial socker who has just caused chaos in a set of Eng Lit articles - the good content inevitably turns out to be copvios or some such.
 * 1) '''What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not (in each case)?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?'''
 * There is a sense in which "its a free internet" applies, and I can see no mechanism by which individual editors could or should be prevented from expressing their opinion elsewhere on the web, if it makes them feel better or they feel it accomplishes something. Come to that, I can't think of any compelling reason why discussion should only take place on wiki.
 * A great many forums have 'closed areas' where those privileged to receive admission gather to bitch about the rest. I have never liked such places. I don't have an account on wikipedia review because it looks like the same kind of place.  I don't have a blog, or any other kind of website where I talk about wikipedia. That's just me.
 * Working IRL in an area where the appearance of probity is essential (that's why the elected members and the chief officers drink in different pubs), I would hold the view that a person acting as an Arbitrator would need to be very careful if they were also a member of a site such as WR, as there will inevitably be fingerpointing. People will make the connection - and no, I don't think that identifying that User:Chimpsteaparty posts on WR under the username Bold Sir Jasper is outing. Outing would be revealing that Bold Sir Jasper/Chimpsteaparty is actually Miss Ann Shopgirl of Maida Vale.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * My opinion-that battle was lost a long time ago. The Athenians drew officeholders by lot, had them work in teams, and rotated them regularly, to avoid precisely this phenomenon. Wikipedia's Solon did not opt for the same practice, rather we have admins for life selected by an open ballot practice. If by vested contributors you mean editors who create a lot of content but are bolshie, then you probably need to say that, because that's not what the Meatball is talking about.
 * Just had occasion to revisit the RfAR for Ottava Rima, and reminded myself that the committee of the day specifically used the term [Vested contributors] with the observation "However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy, not even from highly experienced, knowledgeable editors who produce quality content." On that basis, it is clear that the committee of the time believed that Ottava qualified as a vested contributor (else why say it) on the basis of his contributions. I don't think the term is the correct one, and I don't think the issue is the same as the problem of a vested contributor (of whom I have met a sufficient sample in other organisations).  Ottava's problem is that he was a bully, not that he was a vested contributor.  And on the other side of that coin, there are editors out there who don't like knowledgeable, highly productive editors, and who are convinced that it is anti-Wikipedia to actually know anything about the articles you edit (someone actually said that in a discussion once - I wish I could find the diff)
 * A great many forums have 'closed areas' where those privileged to receive admission gather to bitch about the rest. I have never liked such places. I don't have an account on wikipedia review because it looks like the same kind of place.  I don't have a blog, or any other kind of website where I talk about wikipedia. That's just me.
 * Working IRL in an area where the appearance of probity is essential (that's why the elected members and the chief officers drink in different pubs), I would hold the view that a person acting as an Arbitrator would need to be very careful if they were also a member of a site such as WR, as there will inevitably be fingerpointing. People will make the connection - and no, I don't think that identifying that User:Chimpsteaparty posts on WR under the username Bold Sir Jasper is outing. Outing would be revealing that Bold Sir Jasper/Chimpsteaparty is actually Miss Ann Shopgirl of Maida Vale.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * My opinion-that battle was lost a long time ago. The Athenians drew officeholders by lot, had them work in teams, and rotated them regularly, to avoid precisely this phenomenon. Wikipedia's Solon did not opt for the same practice, rather we have admins for life selected by an open ballot practice. If by vested contributors you mean editors who create a lot of content but are bolshie, then you probably need to say that, because that's not what the Meatball is talking about.
 * Just had occasion to revisit the RfAR for Ottava Rima, and reminded myself that the committee of the day specifically used the term [Vested contributors] with the observation "However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy, not even from highly experienced, knowledgeable editors who produce quality content." On that basis, it is clear that the committee of the time believed that Ottava qualified as a vested contributor (else why say it) on the basis of his contributions. I don't think the term is the correct one, and I don't think the issue is the same as the problem of a vested contributor (of whom I have met a sufficient sample in other organisations).  Ottava's problem is that he was a bully, not that he was a vested contributor.  And on the other side of that coin, there are editors out there who don't like knowledgeable, highly productive editors, and who are convinced that it is anti-Wikipedia to actually know anything about the articles you edit (someone actually said that in a discussion once - I wish I could find the diff)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * My opinion-that battle was lost a long time ago. The Athenians drew officeholders by lot, had them work in teams, and rotated them regularly, to avoid precisely this phenomenon. Wikipedia's Solon did not opt for the same practice, rather we have admins for life selected by an open ballot practice. If by vested contributors you mean editors who create a lot of content but are bolshie, then you probably need to say that, because that's not what the Meatball is talking about.
 * Just had occasion to revisit the RfAR for Ottava Rima, and reminded myself that the committee of the day specifically used the term [Vested contributors] with the observation "However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy, not even from highly experienced, knowledgeable editors who produce quality content." On that basis, it is clear that the committee of the time believed that Ottava qualified as a vested contributor (else why say it) on the basis of his contributions. I don't think the term is the correct one, and I don't think the issue is the same as the problem of a vested contributor (of whom I have met a sufficient sample in other organisations).  Ottava's problem is that he was a bully, not that he was a vested contributor.  And on the other side of that coin, there are editors out there who don't like knowledgeable, highly productive editors, and who are convinced that it is anti-Wikipedia to actually know anything about the articles you edit (someone actually said that in a discussion once - I wish I could find the diff)
 * Just had occasion to revisit the RfAR for Ottava Rima, and reminded myself that the committee of the day specifically used the term [Vested contributors] with the observation "However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy, not even from highly experienced, knowledgeable editors who produce quality content." On that basis, it is clear that the committee of the time believed that Ottava qualified as a vested contributor (else why say it) on the basis of his contributions. I don't think the term is the correct one, and I don't think the issue is the same as the problem of a vested contributor (of whom I have met a sufficient sample in other organisations).  Ottava's problem is that he was a bully, not that he was a vested contributor.  And on the other side of that coin, there are editors out there who don't like knowledgeable, highly productive editors, and who are convinced that it is anti-Wikipedia to actually know anything about the articles you edit (someone actually said that in a discussion once - I wish I could find the diff)
 * Just had occasion to revisit the RfAR for Ottava Rima, and reminded myself that the committee of the day specifically used the term [Vested contributors] with the observation "However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy, not even from highly experienced, knowledgeable editors who produce quality content." On that basis, it is clear that the committee of the time believed that Ottava qualified as a vested contributor (else why say it) on the basis of his contributions. I don't think the term is the correct one, and I don't think the issue is the same as the problem of a vested contributor (of whom I have met a sufficient sample in other organisations).  Ottava's problem is that he was a bully, not that he was a vested contributor.  And on the other side of that coin, there are editors out there who don't like knowledgeable, highly productive editors, and who are convinced that it is anti-Wikipedia to actually know anything about the articles you edit (someone actually said that in a discussion once - I wish I could find the diff)
 * Every organisation has factions - it's probably genetic. Wikipedia has lots, some cover quite big swathes of membership, some are quite small. The important thing is to recognise the factions, and also recognise when there has been a shift in the general consensus towards or away from a faction - as at that point, the faction becomes 'a movement' which is quite a different animal.

Submitted 18:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC) by ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions/comments from Ncmvocalist and responses from Elen
If it's not inconvenient for you, I'd like it if you could respond directly under each question/comment. Thank you in advance. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Q1. In your opinion, are unblocks more harmful than blocks? Why? Ncmvocalist (talk) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators
 * They can be. A block has the benefit of being a decisive act for which it is not normal policy to gain concensus first, as it is supposed to come with some cited policy (whether ultimately spurious or not) in the block reason. An unblock with defective process can actually look more like a runaway action in some cases. Unblocks outside of the standard review process frequently require a larger consensus, and unblocks against consensus or while consensus is still forming can give the impression that there are factions on wikipedia or that admins engage in partisan activities.  I wish some admins understood this - even if there is a suggestion of impropriety it can have a long shadow (although in fairness I work in a world where propriety is everything, so I'm probably more acutely aware of it than some of the community).  Also of course it can just give the impression that we are not capable of running a whelk stall (to use the seaside expression). Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Q 2-3 relate to the following scenario:

''A request for arbitration is submitted concerning an administrator who: (1) is territorial over their admin actions - refusing to permit their peers to modify their actions in any way, (2) has a history of threatening their peers with arbitration requests, and (3) appears to generally view their role on the project as a combination of cop, prosecutor, and jury (in favour of convictions via blocks) rather than the actual role that many Wikipedians expect of admins. The admin in question spends a lot of time in AE, praising and defending AC, as well as statements that you have made as an arbitrator. This request is filed at a time where AC is still the only body capable of desysopping an admin. Assume that a request for comment on user conduct has resulted in mixed responses, but the admin in question has refused to heed any requests to change his approach.''

Q2. How would you deal with or respond to this situation? Ncmvocalist (talk) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ouch! Firstly, nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it make admins judge, jury, executioner and the court of appeal.  As far as I can see, admins do not have the *right* to refuse to have their decisions reviewed.  There's a review mechanism for everything - blocks should be reviewed by another admin, deletions can go to DRV, some actions can go to the community, enforcements can be appealed to arbcom. Secondly, admins of all editors should be prepared to have things questioned.  No-one on Wikipedia has a free pass.  These are two principles that need to be at the head of any decision to take a case.


 * It is important to establish what is going on here. You have described a scenario where the admin's position seems clear. If it isn't clearcut, if what is happening is that he/she is being challenged for taking hard decisions, then it is important to establish and state this - the guy/gal has to go on working here.  I and my team at work have frequently been on the end of complaints for not delivering the outcome the customer wanted ('no sir, you really do owe that £1500. No, the revenue officer wasn't threatening you - if you don't pay up, he really is allowed to send the bailiffs in').  You can't just ignore them if you think they are unfounded - it leaves the team member in limbo.  Someone has to say the complaint is not upheld.


 * On the other hand, if it is an accurate description, this concerns more than just this admin and the editors raising the concern - it raises a whole propriety thing for the community perception of admins in general. Do they have clear standards.  Are these enforced etc. I wouldn't say action needs to be taken pour encouragez les autres (a principle I don't approve of), but I would say that Arbcom needs to show it will take appropriate action where necessary. If there is clear evidence that the community has raised this before and the concerns persist, Arbcom should take this case.  Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Q3. {placeholder}

Arbcom election questions from Rschen7754
Due to the changed format of this year's election questioning, I have removed all the questions that are covered by the general election questions (but please be sure to answer those thoroughly!) If you wouldn't mind answering the following brief questions that evaluate areas not covered by the general questions, that would be great!


 * 1) What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE  b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?
 * 2) Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?

Thank you. Rschen7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Re Competence, as an essay, it's an essay. I'm not sure people realise that the other competencies - social, npov etc are in there. After all, if someone lacks the social competence to work with other editors, they end up blocked for incivility not competence. I do see it in use focused as if it were a policy on what I might term 'intellectual competence' - a combination of factual incompetence and lack of intelligence. Put brutally, this user is too thick to edit Wikipedia. I've seen a pattern for editors against whom WP:COMPETENCE is cited in this way - they seem incapable of understanding any instruction (I've rewritten everything in simple english more than once, to no avail) and one feels sympathy for them. Then they usually take to socking, trolling or other devious behaviour. Were they trolls to start with, and was it a game? I do have a concern that competence is sometimes raised when someone cannot grasp our arcane language - I can attest that it's hard enough for good native english speakers to figure out what a wiki-jargoneer is saying, let alone some poor soul from New Delhi, who probably has an A* in English, but that never included acronyms from the book of wiki. And I've had concerns with some dyslexic editors, who can manage content creation with the help of a spellchecker/proofreader, but who fall apart in freeform discussion. I have a dyslexic daughter - she would be perfectly capable of editing wikipedia (if she was interested) but she can't spell for toffee.

Personally I'm not a fan of Not Therapy. I think it gets bandied about in a sometimes quite offensive way, whatever the intention of its creator. As with competence, I dont think most people actually know what it says - it isn't talking about wikipedia as therapy, it is talking about collegial editing. At the same time, I have come across people who say that we must let them edit Wikipedia because its the only thing they have got to live for, and sometimes that can be a "not therapy" issue.

As to your second question, it strikes me that Fifelfoo has asked something similar 'over the page'. I gave him an example of where the guideline on article titles for aristocrats intersected the commonname guideline in Lord Byron, and how the community had eventually plumped for the simpler, more well known form. So while standardised conventions can be a help, and a wikiproject or more informal group should endeavour to form consensus on standardisation, if they can't get consensus, they can't claim any overriding authority. I suppose I might make an exception where they are imposing a sourced taxonomy - recent conversations with Wikiproject Gastropods suggests that the taxonomy of these critters is in something of a flux, so the project has agreed to stick with one source for their classification. Although in this case, I don't think there is an issue with consensus; everyone seems to agree with them. In other cases, I can see it being a road to disaster (names must be in Turkish/Kurdish/Armenian...yeah).Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Sven Manguard
I decided to ask these questions after reflecting on an hour long conversation over the IRC with an editor that I hold in very high regard. I intermixed her concerns with my own concerns to form this short list of general questions. Please answer them truthfully, and draw upon whatever experiences or knowledge you possess. I apologize in advance for all the questions being compound questions. Thanks in advance, sincerely, Sven Manguard  Talk


 * 1) What is the greatest threat to the long term survivability or viability of Wikipedia? If the threat is currently affecting Wikipedia, what actions can be done to limit it? If the the threat is not yet affecting the project, what actions can be taken to keep it that way? What is the overall health of the project today?
 * A.Entropy. The tendency of an open system to revert to a base state (chaos) unless energy is continuously injected into the system.  This is not being flip, it's obvious that without the constant input of the editors updating, the vandal fighters cleaning, the gnomes categorising etc, wikipedia will descend to chaos.  There is no endpoint beyond which we can rest, the project is like the Red Queen - we have to keep running just to maintain our position.
 * 1) What are the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of the project? What processes do we do well, and what processes fail? What content areas do we excel at and where do we need to improve?
 * A.What we do well is to provide a participatory, creative activity that people all over the world can join in with. I've said in three or four places now that there are lots of different things that people can do and all are important to creating an encyclopaedia - as in the apocryphal story of the dignitary visiting Kennedy Space Center in the 1960s and asking the janitor what he was doing, to which the man replied "I'm working to put a man on the moon." What we suck at is dispute resolution.  We have a view of disputes as a group of academics at a symposium (or even a Symposium), and we continue to struggle with disputes where everyone is clearly still refighting the first World War.
 * In terms of content, a chance interaction with Wikiproject Gastropods has made me realise that there are still thousands and thousands of articles about living creatures to be written - they have hundreds of pictures of snails, some of them quite beautiful, awaiting the articles to put them in. Problematically, there are swathes of living creatures about which next to nothing is still known.  We are light on English literature - sadly some recent articles have had to be pulled or gutted due to plagiarism problems with an editor who turned out to be a well known, previously banned, compulsive sockmistress. This is an area where there is a considerable benefit from editors experienced in academic research.  We have extraordinarily good coverage of Association football, an area with plenty of amateur contributors.
 * 1) What is your view on the current level of participation in Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have enough active contributors today? Does it have too many?
 * A.I don't think it has enough. When the project started, I think many people expected they would see it from start to finish. But people get spouses, jobs, kids. They get bored. They naturally move away.  We will always need a large pool of editors.
 * 1) Does Wikipedia do a good job at retaining its active contributors? What strengths and weaknesses within the project can you point to that affect retention? Are recent high profile burnouts indicative of a problem within the project or are they unfortunate but isolated events?
 * A.Those burnouts/blowups are a concern. One never knows what's going on in real life when this happens.  Is the editor facing redundancy or divorce, is a family member sick, have they got housing or money worries? Since we offer pseudonomy, we have no right to expect to know the answers to these questions.  We could do a few things that might help. Improve dispute resolution processes. Offer mentoring type support to admins working in high contention areas, and maybe work on organising a voluntary roster for overseeing the real flamers, so admins can be rotated away from the front line, rather than feeling they have to walk away. Discourage the blame culture - we're quite bad at demanding heads on poles instead of a lessons learned report.
 * 1) Do you believe that the project should prioritize on improving existing content or creating new content. Is there an ideal ratio of creation:improvement? For the purposes of this question, assume that you have complete control over where the community as a whole focuses their efforts. This is, of course, a hypothetical situation.
 * A.Interesting question. We need both, and we can't really afford to carry on with one at the expense of the other. The more subjects we cover, the more we keep that top 5 google slot, but if the content sucks, no-one will bother clicking the link. We have hotspots in content - heaps of unreferenced BLPs that various teams are slowly making their way through, for instance - that could make local priorities within one or other activity, but even if I could direct everyone to one thing or the other, I would still try to retain a balance.
 * 1) Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
 * A.For the moment, yes.
 * 1) If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
 * A. The thing that I keep muttering about most is the Mediawiki interface, so probably not a relevant answer to your question.
 * 1) Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
 * A.For the moment, yes.
 * 1) If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
 * A. The thing that I keep muttering about most is the Mediawiki interface, so probably not a relevant answer to your question.
 * A. The thing that I keep muttering about most is the Mediawiki interface, so probably not a relevant answer to your question.

Response to Elen's answer to my question on the main page
A most helpful and lucid reply, thank you very much. At a more auspicious time for extra reading, you might find the hard-to locate epilogue I mentioned interesting also. Gripping, even. Inexorable. Bishonen | talk 03:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC).

Question from Offliner
Do you believe the nationalities of Wikipedia's editors are fairly represented in the current ArbCom? Could you please reveal your own nationality? If you do not wish to reveal your exact nationality, could you at least state whether you are from an anglophone country? Offliner (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for missing this. I come from Yorkshire in England, my father's line is English as far back as I can trace except for one Scot, my mother's line comes from the southwest of Ireland. I'm not aware of the nationalities of all the arbs, but I do think having a mix of nationalities is a very good thing.  Cultural sensibilities are very different between eg an Australian and an English speaker from Mumbai, and people with disparate histories can have a very different view of the world. In terms of language, although I speak and write very well in my native tongue, my fluency in other languages seems to stop at reading menus. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Carcharoth
See other side of page for context - reposting them here so I can give short answers--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Parties to cases post repeatedly to your talk page, and/or e-mail you and/or the mailing list
 * If posting chit chat, be polite but suggest its not appropriate to appear to be their bosom buddy while the case is going on. If it's to do with the case, revert and ask them to make their point on the case pages.  I already do the latter sometimes if a talkpage or noticeboard discussion is going on, reminding the user to keep the comments in one place.


 * Real life intervenes while you are halfway through voting on a case and you don't know when you will be able to continue
 * Dash off a quick message to arbs and clerks, ask them to inform the parties, indicate willingness to allow matter to proceed even at this late stage if time is of the essence, leave it to them to agree whether to wait or proceed (I am of the opinion that the parties should be advised that an issue has arisen even if they don't get all the details, and an also of the opinion that the decision to wait or proceed should involve both arbs and parties, and will be different in each case)


 * An e-mail arrives at the mailing list requiring an 'emergency' response and you are the only arbitrator around
 * Answered that 'over the page'


 * You fall out with a fellow arbitrator and have a big argument on the mailing list
 * Ouch! Take five.  Go out to dinner with hubby or shopping with girls.  Return with renewed perspective and apologise/offer olive branch/ask another arb to help finding a middle way. Whether I'm right or wrong I've got to work with this guy, so I've got to find a way to go on working with this guy.


 * Parties to a case you are drafting prove to be incapable of submitting adequate evidence
 * Seen this happen, and it's difficult. I do expect to do some investigating, not just rely on case stated, so I would hope to have established whether there actually is any evidence to submit. If there is, and the lack of submission is down to a language/capability issue, I would propose to have a neutral third party help them construct their evidence. As far as I know that's a novel suggestion, but IRL we do help people who have access difficulties, so I don't see why we can't have someone format diffs, help them express themselves in clearer English etc. I can't do it, it would make my life easier (assuming I was drafting) and would be preferable to the case not getting a thorough airing, me making a mistake and the guy saying 'but that's not what I meant at all'; or else me appearing to have coached the guy.


 * Parties (or potential parties) to a case fail to make a statement and/or retire
 * Seen this too. I'm a great believer in continuing as far as possible, so if it's one of several in the party I'd recommend going on.  Usually though it's a single 'accused' who either ignores the proceedings or retires. If they ignore the proceedings but are plainly still editing, the case should continue in absentia. Refusing to recognise the court isn't going to work.  If they have retired, it should 'lie on the books' (adjourned sine die) and if they come back, the 'plaintiffs' should be asked if they wish to resume.  It may be that this was a dispute between two parties, and the other party has left in the interim, in which case the case will lapse.  On the other hand, the community could have asked that this case be brought, in which event I expect support and evidence will be forthcoming.


 * You disagree with an action taken by a clerk and tensions rise as a result
 * Ultimately the clerks have a defined role, so if the clerk has taken action as part of that role, I should not be interfering even if I would have done it differently. If I said something off my own bat, I may well need to withdraw, or at least tone it down to 'I wouldn't have done that but it was your call.' Different situation if there is agreement that the clerk was out of order, but that's a bigger problem.


 * Parties to a case make strident and repeated calls for your recusal
 * Difficult. Do they have any kind of reason, or just because I have a reputation as a hanging judge/soft on offenders? Discuss it with other arbs, gauge opinion. It's better to recuse than to taint a case, but one mustn't give the impression that one can be bullied out of arbitrating. If one recuses, one must then walk away and not input further.


 * Poorly assembled ban appeals arrive at the mailing list and will require work to sort out
 * Pain in the arse, but someone has got to do it. There would be a tension - if this dude can't write out his ban appeal, why would you want him back; but equally I would want to be sure that there wasn't an access issue that had maybe even partly led to the ban. This is another area where there could be a possibility of having a third party assist in constructing the appeal.


 * Banned sockmaster consistently denies socking and refuses to take no for an answer
 * What's the evidence like? If it's watertight, then its down to ignoring them (and probably playing whackasock, which kind of answers the question). Trouble is, as far as I can see, there is often a balance of probabilities in the evidence - I'd be sure I understood where the percentage is. Standard offer could be made if the socking has eased off (and you're not dealing with a long term abuser).


 * You sense you are very tired/ill or not fully alert, but voting needs to be done
 * Difficult. I'd ask for 24hr extension - time is probably not that much of the essence. As with the answer above - arbs and parties should be made aware that I have requested this.


 * Voting on a remedy to ban someone is deadlocked and you have the casting vote
 * A casting vote is where the chairman gets two votes, one as an individual and one as the chair, if its deadlocked. I don't believe arbcom has a chair with a casting vote, so ultimately I'm just being asked which way I would vote, and it's an accident that I'm the last one voting. So I'd vote however I felt the evidence showed, same as I normally would.


 * Parties to a case are squabbling on the case pages and no clerks are around -
 * I could (if it was bad enough) fully protect the page until the clerks get back, and put a big note up explaining what I've done. That doesn't cast a shadow on anyone in particular, and would probably be better than trying to mediate and getting drawn into the argument.


 * You are last to vote on a case and want to copyedit and/or rewrite parts of the proposed decision
 * No. Everyone else has voted.  They'll kill me.  Seriously, I think that unless there is already a suggestion that something has changed and people would prefer other wording, the time for discussing wording has already gone by.  The most I would do is vote and say 'would have preferred x'.


 * You are trying to do some work on articles and someone pesters you about arbitration matters
 * Knowing me, I'd probably answer them - I'm terribly easily distracted away from article writing. Perhaps its fortunate the project isn't relying on me for featured articles.


 * After several months of intense arbitration work, you begin to hallucinate that you are God
 * Time for a holiday.