Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Xeno

Xeno

2010 is shaping up to be a record year for Arbitration Committee Elections - both in terms of the high number of seats available and the low number of candidates stepping forward to fill them. I can't say I'm surprised - it seems like a dreadful job for which only a sucker for punishment would apply. And though I am not looking forward to the headaches that accompany the position, I've been encouraged to stand. And more importantly, the community deserves a selection that exceeds the number of seats available. So I'll toss my hat in (while hoping that a handful of candidates more qualified than I follow my lead).

I've been contributing here regularly since January 2008, became an administrator in June 2008, and a bureaucrat in June 2010. I've done a fair amount of work with bots/assisted editing and serve on the Bot Approvals Group. I have a decent amount of experience in dispute resolution and user conduct issues, and took a very active role in bringing the long-running dispute over the Rorschach test images and associated data to a close. I had been planning on volunteering for the Audit Subcommittee and have previously offered to assist with the Oversight queue, so I would likely contribute in these areas in addition to regular committee business.

I believe it's customary to mention alternate account usage (of which the committee is aware^[1]) - I have several alternate accounts used for different functions disclosed on my userpage and do not edit via IP save for a few accidental logged-out edits. Aside from these, I have never edited Wikipedia from another account.

^ I previously used an account for privacy reasons that only made an handful of edits, to the mainspace only, in an innocuous fashion.

Arbitration Committee Election 2019 candidate: Xeno

General questions

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: I'm university-educated and employed in a position that involves resolving disputes on a constant basis. I am prepared and qualified to perform all of the above roles, though admit that available time may be a factor.
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: Stress from threats and abuse is no stranger to me. Will deal with it as it comes by keeping a level head and seeking outside advice when necessary.
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: Notwithstanding the copyright issue, the integrity of information sent in confidence should be maintained. Should there be need for administrative review of the private correspondence, it should be forwarded to the committee as opposed to being posted in public.
- (b) "Responsibility"
  A: Editors, and administrators especially, should be willing to justify their actions and the ultimate responsibility for those action lies with them. I'm not so sure about the final sentence - it's a bit dated and would need to be tweaked.
- (c) "Perceived legal threats"
  A: I might tweak the wording of this somewhat (as editors should not be restricted from using precise language simply because it might be misunderstood), but it's good advice to use language that won't be construed as a legal threat if that is not the intent of the message.
- (d) "Outing"
  A: An editor can still harass another editor using their personal information (even if it was voluntarily supplied), so this should be tweaked to reflect that.
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: I generally lean towards the side of second chances, but I also think that at times negative behaviour remains unchecked for too long. Many users regard the dispute resolution process as futile and ineffective, so do not engage the processes. I would be influenced by how willing users are to explain and, if necessary, moderate their behaviour to resolve the dispute and avoid disputes in the future. If an administrator has lost the confidence of the community, a prior case is not be necessary for desysopping; cases of gross or persistent performance below the standards expected of administrators and violation of the community's trust may be enough.
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: The committee derives its authority from the community and should not legislate from the bench.
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: To directly rule on content would be to abandon impartiality with respect to the dispute participants (there is a reason arbitrators recuse when they have strong views about the subject). The community would be better advised to create a separate body to examine cases of content (who would conversely need to ignore the behaviour of participants and focus strictly on the content).
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 haven't followed any cases in detail.
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: I would have to become more familiar with the internal proceedings before proposing changes. I think it's important that the committee remain accountable to the community and address disputes brought before them in an expedient manner.

Individual questions

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:

Question:
A:

Question: Is your questions talk page open for additional questions? NW (Talk) 12:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: Sure, within reason.
Question: You have had prior dealings with the user known as "Giano" (currently editing under the account GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs)), examples [1] [2]. Can you explain the incident involving why you are mentioned in this block log? With respect to the cited prior involvement, why did you promote this user to userrights of "Rollback"? If elected to ArbCom, will you recuse yourself from future admin and ArbCom involvement with this user? -- Cirt (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: The incident is ancient history, water under the bridge. It was regarding some edits I made to an article that Giano did not welcome, and he expressed his displeasure at my talk page. Another administrator decided to place a block of their own accord. The unblock was the appropriate course of action as I was largely at fault.
I didn't promote the user, I simply transferred the right that already existed on their prior account to their new account.
I will recuse any time that I feel I cannot act in an impartial manner or if acting would produce the appearance of impropriety from the perspective of a reasonable observer.

Question: You suggested a separate body to deal with content disputes. I know it's outside the purview of ArbCom... but... For behavioral issues that stem from hotly disputed topic areas (and topic areas that are hard to resolve because of behavioral issues), would an ArbCom remedy ever include creating a (temporary) mediation body for that topic? If yes, how would you empower the community to resolve that topic where other attempts at dispute resolution have failed? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: By the time a content issue gets to arbitration, MedCom/MedCab should have been tried. The problem with these processes are that if even a single user refuses to engage in mediation, the process does not proceed. So a body to making binding decisions on content would need to be higher level. But I'm not so sure about a remedy creating a temporary body (since this would just be an endrun around the principle that "ArbCom doesn't rule on content") - it would be preferable if such a body were created by the community (consent of the governed, and so forth).
Very clear. Thanks and good luck! Shooterwalker (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: (Revised to fit 75 word limit) This is intended as one multi-facet question. How well do you think arbcom has been handling bot-related disputes? Is it getting better at them? Given your BAG experience, what kind of influence would you try to exert on bot drama as an arbitrator? What is your opinion of this comment by AKAF from the date delinking case? And do you think Wikipedia currently has too many bots, too few, or about the right number? 69.111.192.233 (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: The date delinking dispute was a huge mess, and I think the committee probably did they best they could (I did not follow it closely). Rarely is a bot task that is so critical that it should go forward when consensus is absent or unclear - so I would be quick to move for injunctions on disputed bot/assisted editing tasks if the operator has not voluntarily stopped. I look very unfavourably upon individuals who ignore critical comments and just push on ahead with a bot/assisted editing task to achieve fait accompli. I am sympathetic to most of AKAF's comment, but I disagree with #6. Comments from outsiders are not ignored, and in fact, comments from outsiders do not occur often enough. Usually it is only the operator and BAG members commenting, community participation at BRFA is sorely needed.
Thanks. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Offliner. You said that you have professional experience regarding dispute resolution. Could you please summarise the most important things and wisdoms you have learned about dispute resolution from your work? Offliner (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No great pearls of wisdom, but I guess the most important thing would be to listen carefully and understand a grievance before offering a solution. If someone feels their side of a dispute has not been heard or understood, they will be less willing to come to an agreement on a solution.
Question: How would you like content adjudication boards to be set-up? (I realize that this is peripheral to arbcom work, but I'm curious as to your opinion on the matter in any case). ScienceApologist (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: I imagine it would be similar to ArbCom - with community-elected representatives, an organized method of receiving evidence that speaks to the content question under discussion, and some way of gauging community consensus as to the issues.
Q: (comment first: your statement and answers above appear lacklustre and opinionless): is content or the social structure of wiki most important? Would you have voted for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Purpose of Wikipedia, which puts content and social at the same level? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(respond to comment: I'm standing in this election out of a sense of duty to give the community some semblance of choice. I don't want the job, but [if elected,] will carry out the responsibilities to the best of my ability. The time and effort spent on my statement and answers reflects this.) I would have voted for the principle you've linked - without mutual respect for our fellow contributors, we may find ourselves lacking the same - to the detriment of content.
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?: "Parties to a case are squabbling on the case pages and no clerks are around". Carcharoth (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: Do arbitrators usually remain hands-off for conduct in the arbitration workspace? If there appears to be no value to the squabbling, I'd probably gently remind them that the case pages have a specific purpose and their discourse does not appear to be serving that purpose and suggest they disengage.

[1] I previously used an account for privacy reasons that only made an handful of edits, to the mainspace only, in an innocuous fashion.

[1]