Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Count Iblis/Questions

Moved comments from #Questions from Beeblebrox

 * 1) I note you stated  that you were "unelectable" about a month ago but then added your nomination at very nearly the last minute. That begs the question of whether this is a serious run or if you are more of a "protest candidate." So my questions  are:
 * Did you seriously change your mind or is this just an attempt to gain more exposure for your ArbCom Reform Party project, like the Recruitment RFC that you opened a few weeks ago?
 * If you and your "running mate" were to get elected, what specifically would be your first priority in your plan to reform the Arbitration system?
 * Do you believe it is a good idea to deliberately create factions within the committee, or in any other area of Wikipedia?
 * You have statements on your userpage to the effect that you reject most site policies and all Arbitration decisions. How, if you do not believe we have binding policies, can you expect to reform anything? If all policies and all arbitration decisions are illegitimate how can you legitimize taking any cases or issuing any decisions? if you were elected and granted admin powers for the role would you follow through on your own call to arms on your talk page and begin unblocking anyone currently blocked pursuant to an arbitration remedy?

(and for the record you have not made the required statements in your nomination regarding willingness to identify yourself and previous accounts) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A: I've updated my statement, this now addresses your questions.


 * Well, for the most part, yes, but those changes do nothing to address my first question regarding what made you change your mind from your recently held position that you were unelectable. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I still think that I'm unelectable, but without any candidates running who have a chance to be elected, I decided to jump in. I'm now not lowering any election chances of candidates who are running, and the Party platform now gets wide exposure on Wikipedia. Some people may get involved in the ArbCom Reform Party and decide to become candidates next year. Some of the candidates running now may take on board some of the ideas of the platform. So, what matters is that this does contribute to the goals of the ArbCom Reform Party, even though I won't get elected.


 * Last year I was thinking of starting this Party, but I was working off-Wiki, contacting a few suitable candidates via email. That didn't work out as I had planned, there was no collective group of candidates running on a single platform, but one of them did decide to run based on some of my ideas and he was elected. So, already we have one ArbCom member who is sympathetic to this platform. This year there is at least one such "stealth" party member who will get elected (that candidate was recruited not by me but by that ArbCom member who was elected last year).


 * So, things are changing, albeit not as rapidly as I had hoped. Count Iblis (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for admitting this is not a serious candidacy and you are once again just spamming for your pet project. I'm rather astonished that you go on to claim to have a secret member already on ArbCom and another running this year. That seems patently dishonest but if true more or less what I have come to expect. I,the k it is unfortunate you seem unable to tell when you are acting dishonestly or unethically. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Moved comments from #Question from Resolute
In one of your above answers, regarding ArbCom and policy, you stated this: "If, however, the community fails to solve this problem after ArbCom has first identified such a flaw in a policy, then the matter will eventually come back at ArbCom and then ArbCom would be justified to fix the policy." This appears to be a typical attitude from you, as your candidate statement also includes language that could very easily be interpreted as an intention to modify policy by fiat in any matter you personally see fit. Given you have a history of unsuccessfully attempting to change policy regarding governance (and I would classify your 'reform' party as a similar failure), I would like to know why you are actually running. Not the "there aren't enough candidates" nonsense either, please. Specifically, are you running to further your personal agenda toward reshaping Wikipedia's governance to suit your own viewpoints? Please explain why you believe Arbcom should have the right to make whatever policy it pleases, irregardless of the wishes of the community. Resolute 15:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The context of this would always be some stalemate in the community that the community itself would find problematic. Take e.g. the issue about "Not Truth" in the Verifiability policy. The community had difficulties handling that dispute. There were to RFCs, the first one was controversial, there was another one and it was closed by a group of Admins. That process is a less formal version of what I think should exist in a more formal form. It would always be the community that would go to some venue and ask for intervention.


 * The dynamics of the stalemate was that 30% was opposing what 70% wanted to do, by arguing that they had the consensus for "not truth" years ago, and that 70% is not a big enough majority to overturn that previous consensus. In such a case if the 70% can live with that (agree to disagree with their fellow 30%), there would be no issue. If, however, like in case of "Not Truth", this this not the case, you need a system that can intervene and make a binding ruling based on what is the best way forward for Wikipedia. The more ad hoc that system, is the more likely it is that you get disputes about this (e.g. in the frst RFC a big dispute arose; Slimvirgin argued that the RFC wasn't widely enough advertised, that was fixed, but also the deadline was changed and then others argued that it was wring to make these changes). Count Iblis (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You have failed to answer my question regarding your motivations. Resolute 19:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything everyone ever does from the moment of birth till death is always to "further some agenda". To make sure a collaborative project like Wikipedia will work well, we have to hold elections to see what someone proposes (which is the agenda of the proposer) is what the community will support. My agenda/motivation is to reform ArbCom in the way I have explained. Count Iblis (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. And would you view being elected an arbitrator as de facto support for any policy-by-fiat change you wish to make? Resolute 21:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Only the policies that affect ArbCom itself, the way ArbCom conducts cases etc. Count Iblis (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So, how exactly does an ArbCom that answers to no one and feels capable of rewriting its own policies to suit itself restore faith in how it operates? Resolute 16:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They have been doing that anyway, so they can just as well use their powers to implement structural changes. The problem with ArbCom isn't primarily bad Arbitrators but a bad structure they have to work with. Count Iblis (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Moved comments from #Question from Begoon
I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all.

Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?


 * I agree with you about the present ArbCom being GOVCOM. That's why I'm not simply running as a candidate, rather I'm running based on the ArbCom Reform Party's platform.


 * How did we get here? I think this is because of social dynamics. Wikipedia has a lot of contentious articles where the content issues are quite easy to settle, but where people fight out battles instead of collaboratively editing with each other. This means that the main focus of Admins and ArbCom has been those sorts of Kindergarten type disputes since Wikipedia's started more than ten years ago. This has transformed ArbCom into a sort of a Kindergarten nanny system.


 * Articles are considered as playgrounds for the editors (toddlers), and the job of the nanny is to keep fighting toddlers apart, give them time outs if they are naughty, or bar them from playing in particular playgrounds. The nannies will try to look into who started a fight, but they can't get it always right.


 * The problem with this is, of course, that there are also serious editors here and for them Wikipedia is more like a University than Kindergarten. The Kindergarten system doesn't work well for University where the details of the dispute matter a lot more. If you're doing serious work on a computer then someone else trying to disrupt that and you pushing back, is not the same as you not letting your fellow toddler play with a toy. The nannies, however, will construe the problem that way, and you may end up being sanctioned (take e.g. the climate change case, where serious editors were sanctioned for "tag team" behavior).


 * To fix this system, I propose that ArbCom first study if the content issues have been dealt with sufficiently. If not, the case goes to compulsory mediation, otherwise it can be treated in more or less the usual way. Count Iblis (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What's the difference between "compulsory mediation" and the system we have now, and how would you compel someone to be "compulsorily mediated" if they simply refused? Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What happens now is that when ArbCom finds that the community cannot resolve a problem, then that still doesn't rule out that the content issues are the most significant driving force causing bad behavior. This was the case in the Climate Change Case. If such a case were to be referred to mediation, then that will favor the serious editors. If someone does not cooperate, that isn't a problem unless that editor would still engage in editing in the affected area and cause problems by doing so. Mediation can then still resolve the disputes between those who participate. ArbCom will then deal with the aftermath of the mediation, which can mean that the editor who didn't participate and isn't editing in a collobarative way with the rest, ends up being topic banned. Count Iblis (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. It all sounds very complicated to me, and I think I'd probably need some sort of flowchart to fully understand how that would improve matters rather than just add another layer of complexity, but I do appreciate the time you've spent answering my questions. Good luck. Begoon &thinsp; talk  04:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That was my question too. To me, the "forced mediation" boils down to the simple ultimatum: "Do you, editor X, agree to withdraw from the conflict immediately, or you would rather face arbitration?". This is not anything unreasonable, because some people (and especially those who did not file the case, but were brought to arbitration by other parties) could indeed prefer to simply stop doing whatever they do. So yes, this sounds like a good idea to me. Stop acting like Judge Dredd. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, although "withdrawing from the conflict" then means that you are given a chance to argue your points as far as editing the relevant articles are concerned in the setting of a mediation. This can take different forms depending on the details of the conflict. You can e.g. think of protecting some articles and only the mediator editing based on talk page arguments.


 * If a small group of civil POV pushers files a case against a large group, and that large group doesn't see the problem, they can still go about their business except that they just post on the talk pages. They can now spend less time in the mediation process than they were used to when editing normally, because they don't have to engage directly with the POV pushers. The group of POV pushers would have to engage in lengthy arguments why they should have it their way, a lot more lengthy than they were used to, because with the mediators there, they can't now use their usual tactics.


 * Mediation may then not be successful, if it isn't it will be very clear to ArbCom who is to blame for that. Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)