Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Floquenbeam/Questions: Difference between revisions

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

nb: I'll get to these over the coming days. It's going to be a slow but steady haul. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?

   I don't have any special experience in real life that would prepare me for ArbCom (not a lawyer or a politician!). I'm just someone who is reasonably familiar with how Wikipedia operates, I've been here now around 6 years, I'm older than the median editor by decades, and I think I've acquired a certain amount of clue in that time. Also a certain amount of cynicism, but I've figured out how to keep that more or less in check.

4. What experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.

   When I have free time, I often look at WP:AN/WP:ANI for threads that I might be able to help with: messed up enough that they need some outside help, but not so dysfunctional that all hope is lost and it would be a timesink. Formal mediation is for content, and as I already mentioned in my statement, that isn't me, so I've never participated in mediation. As far as I recall, I've never participated heavily in an ArbCom case, although when the spirit moves me I'll comment about accepting/rejecting cases that are still in the "requests" stage. I won't lie; this lack of intimate knowledge about ArbCom's inner workings is a weakness. However, I think it's balanced by the strength of not being the kind of person that loves to participate in ArbCom cases.

6. Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions?

   Just comparing my actions at places like AN/ANI and WP:AIV to others' actions, I think I generally tend to be more lenient than average with people that I still think might be editing in good faith, or might be quietly talked into different behavior, and harsher than average once I decide that I don't think they're editing in good faith or they aren't going to change.

8. Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).

   I can't think of any conflicts of interest at all in real life; I suppose if something regarding my place of employment came up, but seeing that it is a 3 line stub, I doubt that will happen. I'm not an activist by nature, there is nothing in real life that would impact my arb'ing. I suppose there are a few editors who have gotten under my skin enough that I'd recuse if they came up in a case, but I can count them on one hand.

10. Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?

    Well there are lots of possible real life circumstances that could affect my participation, but none that I know of right now. However, keep in mind per my statement that I don't plan to be highly active, so as circumstances change in real life, I expect my ArbCom activity to ebb or flow, rather than start or stop. However, if circumstances do change significantly, to the point where I think I'm nearly useless, I'll resign rather than just being a cipher.

12. Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.

    If anyone wants to ask my opinion about a specific case, I'll answer, but I haven't watched many cases recently. Again, I accept this lack of familiarity with other cases could be considered a weakness to my candidacy, but I maintain it would also be a valuable perspective to have a few non-political people not overly interested in ArbCom politics on the actual committee.

14. The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?

    The "good or bad trend" part is not really an important question. As for criteria I would use to accept a case, it wouldn't be much different than what most arbs appear to be using now: is this a problem that the community has tried and failed to solve? Or one that, by it's nature, the community can't solve? Is it one where ArbCom could actually solve anything? If the evidence is incontrovertible, can it be handled by motion? Regarding admin misuse of tools, I will be less likely to take a case than some would prefer if I think it's an isolated incident, and more likely to take a case than some would prefer if it appears it is a pattern where the admin has refused to change, even if the misuse itself might be considered minor.

16. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?

    In general, I'm not running as a "candidate for change". In addition, it's difficult to answer this before I've had to deal with ArbCom's procedures. Once I see how it's run on the back end, if I see anything I think could be run better, I'll suggest it.

18. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?

    In general, I'm not running as a "candidate for change". ArbCom can be dysfunctional, but I don't have any brilliant insight on how to make it less so. If I am voted in, and ever decide I think ArbCom should have a different role in the community, I'll propose it as an ordinary editor somewhere; I wouldn't have the right to try to reform the role of ArbCom just because I was an arb.

    Regarding WMF and ArbCom, I will say that based on the partial information available to me, I'm not impressed with the role WMF has deferred to ArbCom regarding child protection (not the "she posted her name and age on her userpage" kind, but the serious, disturbing kind). I think ArbCom, as a collection of untrained volunteer encyclopedia editors, cannot be expected to know how to handle this, and should have nothing to do with serious child protection issues; somebody needs to get trained and paid to do this, and the people that get paid are WMF, not ArbCom.

20. It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?

    This doesn't look like an important question. I'm not going to answer unless someone can explain why it's important.

22. What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?

    I would hope that most BLP issues would be resolved by the community. However, the BLP policy isn't as black and white as some people think, so I can see how occasionally an actual BLP-related case can make its way to ArbCom. The Manning case, for example, had reasonable, rational people on both sides, in addition to the jerks on both sides. In BLP-related issues, I believe that if it unclear what exactly we should do, we should err on the side of least possible harm to the living person affected, until a calm rational discussion could be held, even if it seems reasonable that another option will ultimately prevail after a discussion. For example, in the Manning case, I would have supported a move to Chelsea Manning, as the least possible harm to the living person affected, while the last discussion played out. Once that discussion was held, I'd support whatever it decided.

24. Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the checkuser and oversight userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?

    To be perfectly honest, not bloody often. I would feel much more comfortable asking other committee members who actually have technical clue about the results of a checkuser, rather than run one myself. I'm not positive enough to say outright that I wouldn't request that user right, but I don't think I would. If I saw something in the course of ArbCom business that required an emergency oversight, I'd want to be able to do that, so yes, I will accept that user right if elected.

26. Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator?

    That's too general a question to answer; too many different possibilities. What I would do depends on what exactly happens; I would either ignore it, or quit, or somewhere in between. If the actual question behind this question is "have you thought this through, are you willing to take the risk?", then the answer is yes. If the actual question is "are you willing to identify yourself to everyone?", then the answer is no. If the actual question is "what exactly would you do?", then the answer is I don't know.

28. Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not?

    I don't think I can answer that in detail without having seen the kind of information we're talking about. I'll try to answer in generalities. In real life, I think when balancing an individual's right to privacy with a community's desire to police itself, the right to privacy should be given an extraordinarily high weight; for example, I hate the PATRIOT act. On a private website with voluntary participation, this concern has less weight, but it is still very high in my book, probably higher than the average. I would tend to err on the side of deleting the information, unless there was a very clear and precise reason not to, and would not be in favor of keeping J. Edgar Hoover type files on lots of people. That said, (a) am I correct that records of Checkuser data are kept independently of ArbCom?, and (b) it's kind of hard to get someone to "forget" that User:Example is really John Q. Smith, so this "err on the side of privacy" sounds nice in theory, but I doubt it means much in actual practice.

30. Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole?

    I can't think of a circumstance where action should be taken against a user based on evidence not shared with them. If it's privacy-related, I suppose I can imagine a situation where all of the details aren't shared with the user, but I would think it's in everyone's best interests to minimize any Kafkaesque actions by ArbCom. I can think of more situations where the community isn't informed of all the details, again mostly relating to the privacy of the person supplying the evidence, or the person being sanctioned in some way, but usually even then a general outline of what is going on should be provided.

    That said, I suppose in the interests of fairness I should point out that, in general, I am not a serious ArbCom critic who believes they are acting as some kind of star chamber. There are far too many disparate voices on the current committee for them to be an effective conspiracy.

Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}

2. What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation?

4. When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active ArbCom case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?

6. Please identify a few motions from 2013 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did. Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5.

8. The "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion has proven to be hugely controversial. What (if anything) did ArbCom do right in this matter. What (if anything) did ArbCom do wrong in this matter.

10. In the aftermath of the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion, several Arbs laid out their reasoning in extensive detail and debated people that disagreed with their decision. While it is not uncommon for individual Arbs to explain their reasoning in greater detail, it is uncommon for so many of them to do so, to do in the midst of a hostile debate. Do you believe that the ArbCom members' explaining of their position was constructive, or did it only add fuel to an already large fire? Do you believe that ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning in great detail regularly?

12. Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?

14. The above question (Q6) was asked to every candidate last year, with several of the ultimately elected candidates pledging to make ArbCom procedures more public, or at least expressing support for such an idea. There has been, as far as I can tell, no progress on the issue.

    - If you are a current ArbCom member: What, if anything, has happened on this issue in the past year? What role, if any, are you personally playing in it?

    - If you are not a current ArbCom member: If you made a commitment above (in Q6) to bring increased transparency to ArbCom, only to reach the body and find that the rest of the committee is unwilling to move forward on the issue, what would you do?

    - All candidates: Do you have any specific proposals that you can offer to address this issue?

• @Sven Manguard: This is, IMHO, an unreasonable number of questions for one user to ask all of the candidates to answer. The number of General Questions was limited for a reason. Are there, say, two of them you find particularly important? Or any that are specifically directed to me? If you identify those, I'll take a stab at them. If anyone else really wants a particular one or two of these answered, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

2. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?

4. What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and WP:OWN? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community?

6. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

8. a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?

10. zOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept a case, or act by motion, related to either a) abuse of the tools, or b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator?

12. What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas?

14. What is your definition of "outing"?

16. What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Wikipedia, and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?

18. Have you been in any content disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any content disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?

20. Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?

22. Have you read the WMF proposal at m:Access to nonpublic information policy (which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)?

Thank you. Rschen7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rschen7754: This is, IMHO, an unreasonable number of questions for one user to ask all of the candidates to answer. The number of General Questions was limited for a reason. Are there, say, two of them you find particularly important? Or any that are specifically directed to me? If you identify those, I'll take a stab at them. If anyone else really wants a particular one or two of these answered, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. In an administrator's noticeboard discussion about a year ago, you said "...community bans are stupid, with no real benefit except the warm sanctimonious feeling they create...". Do you still feel the same way about bans? As an arbitrator, are there specific circumstances in which you would support issuing community bans?

   Thank you for asking only one question, Mark, and one specifically applicable to me. I'll return the favor by answering yours first. I'll be more precise than I was last year. The typical community ban as it occurs on WP:AN orWP:ANI is stupid. It's almost always an already-indef-blocked editor, who no admin is going to unilaterally unblock (the only significant difference), and it almost always turns into a two minutes hate (I think I broke the Orwell corollary to Godwin's Law, only half an hour into my candidacy). Those discussions ("Strong Support: we must show him that he has betrayed the trust of the community") turn my stomach. Actual honest-to-God community ban discussions on AN/ANI, about an editor who is currently editing, are not stupid, just extraordinarily rare. ArbCom is a different kettle of fish; you never (to my knowledge) see them banning someone already indef blocked, and you never (to my knowledge) see them engaging in a two minutes hate.

I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter three were actually general questions asked in 2012, which I asked be used again.

2. An arbitrator stated during a case "I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?

4. Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper?

6. Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions?

8. Past Cases: The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?

10. The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?

12. Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?

14. Factionalism" (specifically not "tagteam" as an issue) has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?

Thank you. Collect (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Collect: This is, IMHO, an unreasonable number of questions for one user to ask all of the candidates to answer. The number of General Questions was limited for a reason. Are there, say, two of them you find particularly important? Or any that are specifically directed to me? If you identify those, I'll take a stab at them. If anyone else really wants a particular one or two of these answered, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, I'd have asked one question, like Mark did, but my unconquerable tendency to long-windedness only let me cut it to 2, sorry. (I felt [a] and [b] would be cheating.) I view both these questions as utterly optional, so please don't feel obliged to answer either of them. .

2. You recently, commendably, put yourself in front of the community by way of an Admin review. Has that process addressed your reasons for initiating it, and has it changed, or reinforced, any particular views or concerns you had going into it? I'd also be interested in whether you think that process, or something similar, could form the basis for something formal, routine, and (kevlar vest on) maybe even mandatory.

4. Your talk page currently bears the notice : "Not really completely back exactly, but kind of tentatively here-ish (Sort-of)". I feel like that most of the time, and I don't think it detracts too much from what I contribute, when I can. I'm sure someone would ask me how that affected my suitability to serve on Arbcom if I was offering to do so, though, so I'll ask you if you want to expand on the relevance, or not, of that statement to your candidacy.

At first, you hear nothing, but you slowly become conscious of a low, sibilant hissing; it seems to be coming from a few feet behind you, no matter how you turn. As the hissing grows louder and ever louder, you realize that you can make out what seem to be the words of a chant, though it sounds like no language you've ever heard or want to hear; you're not sure that human throats can even produce the alien sounds. Suddenly, just before the maddening chant becomes too loud for you to bear, words spring unbidden into your mind and form a question:

2. The Outer Gods have become aware of the proliferation of "joke sockpuppets" within the Earthly Wikipedia, and are watching with interest the extraordinary amount of clout they possess. What will you do to combat the fierce menace of joke socks as a member of your human "Arbitration Committee"?

Thank you, precious candidate, for volunteering.

2. Please describe what happens in this diff. You answered that question before, remember? So right to the next question: imagine you are an arb on a case, and your arb colleague presents the above diff as support for his reasoning to vote for banning the editor, - what do you do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]