Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Iridescent/Questions

1. Skills/interests: Which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator? Your responses should indicate how your professional/educational background makes you suitable to the tasks.
   • (a) reviewing cases, carefully weighing up the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions;
   • (b) drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
   • (c) voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and motions for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
   • (d) considering appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or considering the Subcommittee's recommendations;
   • (e) overseeing the allocation and use of checkuser and oversight permissions, including the vetting and community consultation of candidates for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
   • (f) running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to CU if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
   • (g) carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators are generally also given OS privileges);
   • (h) drafting responses to inquiries and concerns forwarded to the Committee by editors;
   • (i) interacting with the community on public pages such as arbitration and other talk pages;
   • (j) performing internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming arbcom-l mailing list traffic.

   A: Regarding (a), (b) and (c) I'll try to get involved in any case to which I think I have something to add, but am not going to make any promises. I have limited time, and some cases can be very time consuming. I'll try to get involved in (d) as much as possible; I have a fair amount of experience in issuing and discussing bans, and feel I understand both the issues affecting Wikipedia, and the way some blocked and banned editors often feel they have a genuine grievance and have been treated unfairly. I'm unlikely to become involved in (e), (f) and (g); to me, these are matters better left to the dedicated vandal-fighters. Re (h) and (i) again, I'll try to get involved as much as possible. The mailing list question, (j), is something I don't feel qualified to offer an opinion on unless and until I've seen the mailing list for myself. – iridescent 11:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Stress: How will you be able to cope with the stress of being an arbitrator, potentially including on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass you by the public "outing" of personal information?

   A: I already get on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass me by the public "outing" of personal information. It's an annoyance, but it happens to all high-profile admins; it's not a problem specific to Arbcom. – iridescent 11:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Principles: Assume the four principles linked to below are directly relevant to the facts of a new case. Would you support or oppose each should it be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? A one- or two-sentence answer is sufficient for each. Please regard them in isolation rather than in the context of their original cases.
   • (a) "Private correspondence"

     A: Generally, yes, although there are a few (limited) circumstances in which I'd consider it acceptable; a credible threat of violence sent by email from someone appealing a ban, for instance. – iridescent 11:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   • (b) "Responsibility"

     A: Again, generally yes but it shouldn't be a set-in-stone rule. If an admin notices a serial vandal, they shouldn't refrain from blocking them on the grounds that they're about to go away for the weekend and thus won't be around to discuss their actions should the block be appealed. – iridescent 11:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   • (c) "Perceived legal threats"

     A: Disagree. I think WP:NLT was intended to refer to clear legal threats ("remove this content or I will sue you"), and was intended to prevent further damage being caused should anything go to litigation. Figures of speech such as "you are defaming the subject by mentioning that" are often just that, figures of speech; bringing the full "You have been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats" big guns into play in those circumstances can just result in stifling debate. – iridescent 11:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   • (d) "Outing"

     A: Agree, except in a few special circumstances such as when child protection issues apply. If someone posts on Wikipedia what their real name, occupation etc is, it's inappropriate to order those who read it to act as if they hadn't. – iridescent 11:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Strict versus lenient: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?

   A: When it comes to blocks and bans, I strongly believe in second chances. A lot of people are blocked in debatable circumstances, or for arbitrarily long periods of time. "You have been blocked for a week" is generally counter-productive in my experience; to me, if an editor is behaving in what appears to be a genuinely problematic way they should either be indefinitely blocked until the matter is resolved, or not blocked at all. (I believe I was the first admin to use the phrase '"Indefinite" as in "Unspecified", not "Forever"') Regarding desysoppings, I think adminship needs to become far more easy-come-easy-go, to remove the stigma of desysopping and the perceived status of adminship; I temporarily resigned adminship in 2009 to make the point that desysopping shouldn't lead to any stigma. – iridescent 11:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community". Please give reasons.

   A: Sort of. Arbcom shouldn't be in the position of making policy, but the existing community mechanisms are notoriously bad at changing policy and always tend to favour the status quo. What's needed is a streamlined structure, independent of Arbcom, in which policy decisions can be made. – iridescent 11:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve?

   A: Ideally, Arbcom should only be involved in content disputes as an absolutely last resort. As the Climate Change saga showed, Arbcom is not a good mechanism for handling content disputes, especially given that its members are unlikely to be familiar with the content involved. – iridescent 11:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. Success in handling cases: Nominate the cases from 2010 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.

   A: I think they handled the Stevertigo case fairly well; they showed a good ability to work out which problems were serious and which weren't. Per my answer above, the Climate Change mess showed the Arbcom system at its most ineffectual and incomprehensible, although the debate was so confused I'm not sure any other system would have worked any better. – iridescent 11:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. Proposals for change? What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?

   A: A more formal split between policy-making, appeals and Arbcom's traditional dispute-resolution function. If I were in charge I'd split WP:BASC off completely and make it independent of Arbcom, and resurrect a more democratic and representative version of WP:ACPD, leaving Arbcom with its core dispute-resolution remit and as a final court of appeal against the decisions of the two spun-off committees. I couldn't bring these changes about; they'd need a broad consensus across the project (or imposition from above by the WMF). All I can say is that if the community proposed these or similar changes, I'd do everything I could to stop Arbcom blocking the changes. – iridescent 11:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for individual questions asked to this specific candidate. Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below. The question should:

• be clearly worded and brief, with a limit of 75 words in display mode;
• be specific to this candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages);
• not duplicate other questions (editors are encouraged to discuss the merging of similar questions);

Election coordinators will either remove questions that are inconsistent with the guidelines or will contact the editor to ask for an amendment. Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time.

Please add the question under the line below using the following format:

1. Question:

   A:

1. Question: If you were a member of the Arbitration Committee when this motion was presented before the committee, how would you have responded, and what reasoning would you have provided to justify your position? –Grondemar 13:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Firstly, to reject it in principle, because I don't think it's Arbcom's place to be "commending" anyone or anything. Regarding the broader issue, I'd probably grudgingly agree with it; anything other than an amnesty for the actions already taken but a halt to the process continuing, would have led to so much bad blood and further tension that it would have ceased to be a matter of right and wrong, but a damage limitation exercise. Arbcom isn't a true court of law, despite the common Supreme Court analogy; sometimes it's best to do what's expedient, regardless of personal opinions. Since a firm decision either for or against the bulk deletions would almost certainly have led to mass resignations, I think this was the best compromise in terms of Wikipedia's overall integrity. – iridescent 16:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Question: How would you balance your article work with the time constrants ArbCom handles. Secret ^account 15:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Same as I balance article work with admin actions. I'll make no pretence that I'd be the most active Arbcom member—I tend to fade in and out depending on real life commitments, although I do try at least to poke my nose into my talkpage every couple of days. Obviously if I get tied up with a huge Arbcom case I'd be spending less time on articles, but that's not a problem unique to Arbcom members. – iridescent 16:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Question: I agree the community has difficulties updating policy and often defaults to the status quo. Sometimes the status quo is no guideline to handle a hotly contested area, creating a vacuum for extreme POVs and the disruptive conduct that comes with it. Should an ArbCom remedy ever ask participants to resolve a disputed topic area with a guideline, and if so, how might ArbCom help make that next round of WP:dispute resolution more effective than the typical RFC? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think it's any great secret that I think the existing RFC process doesn't work. If it's just a few people involved, chances are they're better off discussing the matter on a talkpage; if a lot of people are involved, RFCs generally degenerate into a lot of people shouting at each other, and incomprehensible lists of often mutually contradictory proposals, all with an apparently high level of support. For those issues where consensus will never be reached (Israel/Palestine, climate change, British Isles Islands of Britain British and Irish Isles Great Britain and Ireland United Kingdom and Ireland Ireland and United Kingdom Anglo-Celtic Isles Archipelago of Great Britain and Ireland Islands of the North Atlantic North East Atlantic Archipelago West European Isles and the like), a Paris Peace Talks approach might work in some cases, in which those involved are basically given a dedicated talkpage and a deadline to thrash out a compromise, otherwise a "nobody's happy" decision is foisted from above. In other cases, outright voting could work, provided all or most of those involved agree to abide by the vote prior to it taking place—something similar was tried once at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names, which was much-grumbled at but at least calmed the worst of the editwars and arguing. – iridescent 18:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for being so direct and clear. Good luck! Shooterwalker (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Question: If appointed, how would you balance your concerns for the long-term viability of the project, your ability to use your power as an ArbCom member to influence that, and the scope constraints the community has traditionally expected arbitrators to work within? In other words, would you care to expand on the personal and procedural aspects of your answer to question 8 above? Skomorokh 18:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   My answer to Q8 had a very clear "if"; it's very much an "if Sue Gardner fell under a bus and I were appointed her replacement" case. Arbcom members have virtually no powers to influence policy or the internal structure of Wikipedia—back in 2004 Wikipedia only had about 500 active editors, and what was a workable model back when everyone knew each other hasn't scaled. That kind of drastic reform would have to be imposed from above, as any RFC would be unworkably long. All any one Arb could do would be to encourage people not to fight sensible proposals for reforms. I would support a reformed and more accountable resurrection of WP:ACPD, to act as a testbed for whether this kind of split would work in practice. As one former (and admittedly rather embittered) Arb recently said, the problem on which proposals to split Arbcom always founder is that there's a lack of qualified people who actually want to do the job; a few trial quasi-autonomous subcommittees with initially limited powers would test the number and quality of people who'd come forward to serve on them. – iridescent 18:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Question: you've said a couple times that Wikipedia is becoming obsolete and will be replaced by the second version of it. Feel free to correct my perception or paraphrasing of your point. What do you see as the reasons for the site's obsolescence? Is the passage of Wikipedia really a bad thing in your opinion? Is there anything you can do as an arbitrator to prevent this from occurring more rapidly? Anything the committee could do to help? --Moni3 (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   The site as it stands is based on the models from five years ago, when Wikipedia still needed to grow. It's now growing uncontrollably fast, and running on outdated software on a shoestring budget. At some point, someone with the money to make it work will graft a more user-friendly open editing interface onto an existing body of work (Britannica are taking baby steps towards doing this already); Wikipedia isn't prepared for the day when it faces a genuine competitor. I don't think it's down to Arbcom to take action against this—any decisions like that would be taken by the WMF directly—nor do I think anyone necessarily should fight it. Wikipedia is a means to an end, not a religious cult; if someone else starts doing the same thing as us but better, the rational thing to do is work with them, not fight them. – iridescent 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. Question: If you disagree with a particular Wikipedia policy provision, are you prepared to uphold it as an Arbitrator? An answer with an (hypothetical) example would be great. Thanks. - BorisG (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry (and I know this is the 'wrong' answer), but that's a meaningless question in the Wikipedia context. I don't disagree with any of Wikipedia's non-negotiable core policies (of which there are very few), and nor (I think) do any of the other candidates; they define what Wikipedia is, and if we didn't agree with them we wouldn't be here. In cases where people are breaching these policies it shouldn't ever reach the Arbcom level, as any editor can and should enforce them. What reaches Arbcom are those matters where Wikipedia's ever-growing morass of mutually contradictory policies and guidelines (of which there are literally hundreds) aren't clear. – iridescent 00:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. Question:This incident when you incorrectly accused another editor of creating a "completely unreferenced BLP" is now several months ago (first two diffs of the BLP in question). What reassurance can you give that if you were an arb you would either not make similar mistakes, or fail to revise your position when such a mistake was pointed out? ϢereSpielChequers 06:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   A:Anyone who promises never to make mistakes is lying; all I can say if a mistake is brought to my attention I'll acknowledge it. (For reference of other readers, this is what the article in question actually looked like; I make no bones about the fact that—whatever the original good intentions behind it—I think the WP:NEWT experiment of creating intentionally bad pages that nonetheless technically didn't meet the deletion criteria, in an effort to entrap and name-and-shame new page patrollers who tagged them for deletion, rapidly degenerated into a toxic exercise in assuming bad faith and intentionally disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and should never have been permitted.) – iridescent 16:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   To err is human and my concern isn't so much the mistake you made as that you didn't correct yourself when challenged then, or now. Incorrectly accusing someone of creating an unreferenced BLP indicates to me less ability to weigh evidence that I expect in an Arb. Not correcting a mistake when challenged is in my view unbecoming of an admin. I didn't ask you for your views on NEWT as I don't regard that as relevant to this election, in fact the only other candidate whose views on this I remember took a similar line to you over NEWT but has my support for Arbcom. ϢereSpielChequers 23:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. Question: You mention in your opening statement that you "...joined Wikipedia back in 2006, and have been active more or less intermittently ever since." In the recent past, several arbitrators have been intermittent contributors or even completely absent for long stretches. Taking your statement at face value, do you intend to be a regular and prolific participant in ArbCom or will your contributions there be intermittent? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   A: I'll certainly be intermittent, but can't say how intermittent; I work totally irregular hours which can't be predicted in advance. In general I try to at least log on and check if there's anything that needs my attention and can't wait at least every couple of days, but I'm in the same position as Chase Me; I can make no guarantees at all regarding availability.

9. Question: A UFOlogist and I go to arbcom. He's used papers from the Journal of Scientific Exploration to show that the balance of sources support the extraterrestrial hypothesis. He says my sources (popular-level writing by Phil Plait, Alexei Filippenko, and the Skeptical Inquirer) are not reliable nor equal in quality to his. Our low-level conflict has lasted months. There is disagreement on the noticeboards on what to do. Mediation failed. How can arbcom help resolve this? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   If it were purely a "which version do we go with" matter, we have established protocols for dealing with fringe theories and deciding what should be classified as such. (As an Abd veteran, I'm well aware of the problems with people who are insistent that their beliefs are The Truth regardless of what The Man wants you to think.) While individual scientists can have particular opinions, and those opinions should certainly be mentioned in Wikipedia articles, we have a duty on scientific articles to reflect mainstream academic opinion even when we don't personally agree with it. With claims that deviate from the most commonly held scientific view, the "burden of proof of significance" rests with those who want them included; someone wanting to treat the Journal of Scientific Exploration as a reliable source in our terms would need to demonstrate a broad spectrum of academics who treat it as such; verifiability is a non-negotiable core principle, and the burden of demonstration always rests with those who want a source included. (It is, obviously, a reliable source when talking about what the JSE believes, rather than declaring it to be accurate.) Arbcom shouldn't be ruling on content except as an absolute last resort—the people working on the article on both sides are almost certainly better qualified to assess the validity of the material than any one member of Arbcom.
   
   In practice, by the time a dispute reaches this level there's a good chance it's ceased to be a content dispute and become a dispute about personalities and user conduct. If either the UFOlogist or yourself are persistently warring with each other, especially if you're dragging third parties into the dispute, then it has a potential chilling effect on anyone else wanting to work on the area and you may both end up blocked, although leeway ought to be given in an editwar to people warring on the side of policy. (That is, the one who can back their position up with academic citations.)
   
   TL;DR version: Arbcom should come down in favour of whoever can better demonstrate academic consensus is on their side, but if both sides are fighting like rutting moose then there's a good chance both of you will end up blocked or topic-banned and a third party will have to work on the article. – iridescent 18:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10. Question from Offliner. In the past, ArbCom has dealt with "cabals" who have used off-wiki coordination to push their agenda—most notably the WP:EEML and WP:CAMERA cases. What do you think of such off-wiki coordination? Are you happy with the sanctions issued in the WP:EEML and WP:CAMERA cases? As arbitrator, what kind of approach would you choose if there were to be a similar case in the future? Offliner (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's something that shouldn't happen, but it's impossible to stamp out entirely; people are going to discuss things privately and there's no way we could prevent it even if we tried. I think the sanctions at EEML were as reasonable as they were ever likely to be, given that by definition nothing was going to satisfy all parties; I think Arbcom got the balance about right, in breaking up the effects of off-wiki coordination without preventing people working in problematic areas altogether. The CAMERA case got it more or less right, although I question some minor elements of the findings—admonishing Hypnosadist for this comment, which to me looks like blowing off steam rather than "misrepresenting key aspects of Wikipedia policy" in retrospect looks awfully petty. I do agree with the existing approach should similar cases arise—make it clear to possible members of the alleged cabals that their actions are being monitored, without coming down so firmly that it drives people away altogether, given that most of the contributions of the editors in question are non-controversial and positive. – iridescent 16:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11. Question: The statement and questions page for another of the candidates touches on a matter that occurred around the end of last year. Your username was mentioned, somewhere along the line, during the events. Please would you comment? –Whitehorse1 15:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A: Already spelled out in detail here. The TL;DR version would be:

    (a) Since anonymity is a core principle of Wikipedia, hunting for sockpuppets and COI is pointless unless the hunt is necessary to prevent disruption;

    (b) Our base of active editors has fallen so low that we shouldn't be turning people away, even if they're technically in breach of policy in returning before a temporary ban expires, unless they're returning in such a way as to cause disruption. (Those under permanent bans are a potentially a different matter, as while some are the victims of internal politics, some are people we don't want back under any circumstances);

    (c) Neither Casliber nor John Vandenberg need have resigned (as, indeed, was the decision at the time; they chose to resign anyway as they felt that staying had the potential to damage Arbcom's credibility). – iridescent 15:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12. Question: I've assembled a set of questions for the 12 candidates listed here. The questions are intended to see how you would respond to situations you will probably encounter if elected. I've picked one question for each candidate listed at the link above; the other questions can be seen here. Please feel free to answer only the selected question below, or all of them if you chose. Your question is what would you do in the following situation?: "You are trying to do some work on articles and someone pesters you about arbitration matters". Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A: Depends on the arbitration matter. If it's something for which I'm the appropriate one to be dealing, then I'd break off what I was doing (within reason) to deal with it. If someone else were better placed to deal with it, I'd nudge them towards that person instead. As you know, this issue isn't that different to the existing admin/editor relationship; the issue is one of volume, rather than a completely different mindset. – iridescent 15:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]