Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Doug Weller

Hi Doug Weller

 * Your anti-vandalism work seems to include keeping relevant but unwelcome (to you) information off Wikipedia. For years you have obstructed posting that Ramses III has haplogroup E1b1a, and that this haplogroup is associated with the Bantu Expansion. This is a ridiculous abuse of power.


 * On the Wikimedia Foundation https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_censoring_Wikinews

MrSativa (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

As I and others have tried to tell you, it's a matter of our policy on sources. Nothing to do with vandalism. The peer reviewed source in question does not say that E1B1a is associated with the Bantu expansion (and wasn't aimed at tracing his ancestry or origin), and combining sources to make an argument is WP:Original research. The Ramesses III article says, twice in fact, that he has E1B1a. I added it to the article a year ago. I'm not sure why you repeated it. If you wish to discuss this further, please do it on my talk page or an article talk page. Doug Weller talk 22:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Unrealistic position?
This comment "I'd like to see COI and (undeclared) paid editing dealt with by the foundation" is not realistic. COI and undisclosed paid editing are significant issues that will need a collaboration between the community, arbcom, and the WMF to address. Due to this I am unable to support. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @Doc James: That's a minor sentence in an answer to a six-part question, and I think you are reading far too much into it. The question has a very blue-sky quality and nothing less than a five thousand word essay would be required to properly address the points raised, so it should be assumed that the text quoted above was not intended as the last word on COI. The WMF will never notice COI editing so the community has an indispensable role in drawing attention to potential problems, and admins/arbcom may be involved in escalation or enforcement. Arbcom is unable to make policy and can only act to resolve otherwise intractable disputes. By the way, see Ask new users to disclose paid editing for a related proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to hear further clarification from Dough on this. Agree arbcom should not make policy. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - it's only unrealistic if you interpret it as saying "only dealt with by the foundation". And looking at what I wrote again, it does suggest that they do nothing, which of course isn't true - they did a lot of work on the Orangemoody case. I believe that they also keep records of reports to them about paid editing - you may know more about this than I do. Of course these issues need collaboration between the community, Arbcom and the WMF. If we left it to the WMF not much would happen. It would be nice to think that they might be proactive - was it you who suggested they could go after a few big offenders by setting up 'sting' operations? I;d be very surprised if they took that up. On the other hand, when they do learn about paid editing they could send out a letter explaining the TOU - it might help in some cases although it probably wouldn't make a big difference. My main concern is that they expect us to do the lion's share.


 * John is right of course, that was just a very brief part of my answers to Biblioworm's 6 part question and in no way adequately expresses my opinions or quandaries in regard to handling paid editing (or COI). I'll have a go but I'm not writing an essay here! I see you support Salvidrim!, and I agree with all 3 paragraphs in his point 2. On the privacy issue, I'm a bit conflicted. Here and elsewhere I've made my real name public (which has left me and at times my wife open to harassment, unfortunately). In an ideal world we all would, but even just on my own experience I can understand why some people want to keep their identities private. But using privacy to avoid detection as an undisclosed paid editor, sock, etc, makes me uncomfortable. I believe that the WMF isn't quite as hot on privacy as our community is, particularly in regard to identifying IP addresses with users. I know this isn't a paid editing or COI issue, but there's nothing in the TOU to prevent identifying an IP address with a known sock, but we tend to avoid it even in the case of long time abusers. I think they would take the same attitude towards using IP addresses in investigations into paid editing. As to our role, I'm not convinced that we should be proactively investigating paid editing as a committee. Among other things we don't have a remit to do it, as you know. Personally, I'd be unhappy to be in a position of ruling that someone is an undisclosed paid editor, simply because it would expose me and my family to a lawsuit if it turned out they weren't. I've already had one company try to get my IP address (they failed) because of an action I took as an Admin. I'm much happier dealing with unpaid editing the way Salvadrim! suggests. I think the registration process discussed at Wikipedia talk:Harassment/Archive 10 might be worth pursuing further, but I suspect it would be rejected.  Doug Weller  talk 16:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments? Doug Weller  talk 06:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for repinging. It is strange as this one did not go through? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I know that the WMF does a fair bit regarding undisclosed paid editing. The community works the best they can on this issue as well. We now need an arbcom that takes the problem seriously.

My concern is that I interpret what you wrote as saying undisclosed paid editing is not an issue arbcom should help address (and by extension not a major issue overall). Agree that "sting operations" that break others terms of us are not appropriate. I have suggested collaborating with Upworks; however, and that collaboration does move forwards.

Having being legally attacked by a fellow Wikipedia, which required getting legal counsel for 9 months, I also "understand why some people want to keep their identities private". Arbcom, it appears to me at this point in time, is not interested in handing the private details required to enforce the TOU. They also appear disinclined to allow other admins to take on the work. As such a change in arbcom members might be good.

While I believe those here deserve a degree of privacy, this should not extend to job postings that advertise paid Wikipedia editing. We are not here to build some anonymous online utopia but an encyclopedia. If people are following the TOU these details should not be private to begin with, and if the are not others bringing the details up on WP should not be a bannable offense. At least that is my position.

I agree that arbcom does not decide policy. The community; however, is currently undecided on this issue. Arbcom, of which you were a member, unfortunately enforced their personal position on the matter regardless of our undecided policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that there are a number of major issues that ArbCom can't address, I don't follow that your line of argument there. I'm not sure how we can allow or disallow Admins to take on the work. Depending on what "take on the work" means, such work might be constrained by policy, but we don't enforce policy where there's no case before us. Doug Weller  talk 21:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

question
How do you plan on dealing with people who have are transition from other wikia to english wikipedia with knowledge of how to utilize the site but are thought to be socks? BlackAmerican (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a tricky question. The different wikipedias have different rules, and there are editors here who are blocked elsewhere. We should treat all editors here fairly though and not assume they will commit blockable offences here. But you are asking about socks. I don't know if you mean socks of editors blocked elsewhere or accounts here running socks. If they are accounts here running socks an investigation at WP:SPI might look into it. But it's something I would do in my role as an Administrator, it's not part of the Committee's role. Doug Weller  talk 22:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)