Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Discussion

2016 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status

• The December 2016 Arbitration Committee Election results have been posted.
• Please offer your feedback on the election process.

This page collects the discussion pages for each of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2016. To read Candidate Statements and their Q&As during the Nomination process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016.

Please endeavor to remain calm and respectful at all times, even when dealing with people you disagree with or candidates you do not support.

Candidates

Calidum

My first thoughts

Leaning towards support; Anyone who has been trying to help with ArbCom since 2011 is likely serious.--Mr. Guye (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It's also nice to have non-admins on the committee. We need someone to represent the perspectives of that key group in our community. Edge3 (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I've long thought this as well. ArbCom is too admin-topheavy. While there's going to be a natural tendency for those the community trusts well enough for adminship to also be good candidates for ArbCom, there are innumerable long-term, content-creation-focused editors who do not want to be admins, sucked into a daily grind of administrative tasks, but who do have the time to set aside for deliberative, slow-moving arbitration work. While trust is involved in both roles, they're very different. Adminship is about addressing the urgent (which is often not important, just time sensitive) and the tedious (and sometimes the fragile), while arbitration is about addressing the important and the intractable. It's not a good thing for ArbCom to be 100% admins, as this introduces a pro-bureacracy, pro-enforcement, less content-editor-supportive and less learning-to-get-along institutional approach, one that has been the primary source of dissatisfaction with ArbCom.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Strong 'No'

Seems like a loose cannon editor with tendency toward drama and petty vindictiveness. ARBCOM is like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia. Calidum in such a high position would be a disaster of huge proportions, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The irony of someone who was just given a two-month timeout for harassment calling me vindictive is not lost on me. Looks like I'm about to lose the coveted somehow still allowed to edit despite being blocked ten times in two years demographic [1] demographic. Oh well. Calidum ¤

Not all harassment is harassment, and not all harassment is attributed to the actual individual perpetrating the harassment, is it, Calidum? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Advice to Calidum: don't feed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I do think we need to think of ways to encourage more non-admins to apply to the ArbCom. I understand you may have concerns with this particular candidate, but the non-admin voting bloc is a very important (and sometimes ignored) part of the community. Edge3 (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that.Halbared (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes: Wikipedia needs to tilt the balance of power to editors, not admins

Editors are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. In recent years, the number of editors has been dropping off. This is in large part because Wikipedia is being taken over by admins, moving toward a hierarchical culture that drives off editors, particularly new ones, who thrive in a more egalitarian environment. We need a demonstration that nonadmins can win elections like this as a first step toward returning Wikipedia to an editor driven environment rather than an admin ruled environment. For this reason I've voted in favor of Calidum and against all the other candidates. Warren Dew (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad

Part of a cadre of admins who mollycoddle the editor Beyond My Ken, taking complaints about non-constructive reverts and behavioral issues and dismissing them on technical grounds. Electing Newyorkbrad to the arbitration committee will create a more clique-y Wikipedia that protects disruptive and borderline abusive editors. Furry-friend (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, jeepers, you would deny me the mollycoddling I so richly deserve? (Try walking in my shoes sometime, I guarantee you won't feel coddled, molly- or otherwise. "Curdled" is more like it. Maybe I'm "mollycurdled" - is that a thing?)

That you would judge the very able and valuable Newyorkbrad by this one thing (assuming you were even right, which you're not) is an indication not you're really not thinking very deeply about people's qualifications, or, indeed, about what would happen if NYB was re-elected as an Arb. (Yes, "re-elected", because he was an Arbitrator from 2008-2013, and he was damn good at it. And the project didn't die of "clique-ishness".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, the next time you feel like mentioning me, please don't ping me, I'm not really interested in what you have to say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm with Furry-friend, despite his obvious POV on the issue. It seems that there are many groups of editors and admins who are unnecessarily supportive of some editors despite their incivility or refusal to follow the rules on Wikipedia. This seems to be a case of that, although I haven't looked very deep and may be entirely wrong. Just my comment. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 20:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

IMO, Newyorkbrad has an amazing presence proven to me by his actions as one of three closing panelists in a recent controversial discussion. Newyorkbrad would serve as well or better than any have in this capacity.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 23:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Language

In response to one of the questions raised for the candidate, I wish to say that I found his language straightforward and clear. As an ESL speaker, who has for years worked hard to express my ideas in English as clear as possible, I consider the candidate's writing skills admirable. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 04:15, 28 November 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) 12:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@BlackAmerican: If this is meant to be a question for me, the answer is that I do not believe in jumping to the conclusion that someone "must be" a sockpuppet or undisclosed alternate account merely because he or she shows familiarity with how to edit Wikipedia in his or her early edits. As you correctly point out, the editor might be familiar with wiki mark-up from another site using the software, or in a number of other ways. This exact issue came up recently in an RfA, in which someone claimed that the candidate "must have had" earlier accounts based on his early editing history, and I pointed out that this was not the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I have seen a number of people blocked after an argument or debate on AFD's based upon an admin saying they are not a new account. Even when they say they are from other wiki, they are ignored. I find this to be quite unfair and wonder if changes will ever come to this issue. BlackAmerican (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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.[2] 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)

@Doc James: - 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#A process at account registration might be worth pursuing further, but I suspect it would be rejected. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: Comments? Doug Weller talk 06:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for repinging. It is strange as this one[3] 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)

@Doc James: 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)

Euryalus

Positive experience

My areas of interest overlap with those of Euryalus. My interactions over the years have been uniformly positive.Acad Ronin (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

can we just vote for this guy?

i mean, he has an interest in Australian navy and knows the difference between dead reckoning and a chronometer. if that isn't cool enough for u, i dont know what is EggsInMyPockets (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Question from BlackAmerican

This was removed from the main Questions page. On balance the second half does relate to approaches to dispute resolution, so have brought it here. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There seems to be a lack of minority articles in Wikipedia. There also seems to be a lot of attacks on female editors and people of color editors who are turned off and attacked as per various articles. There is also a number of articles of people of color and women who lack articles based on lack of sources. How do you plan on overcoming this BlackAmerican (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the question. There's two separate issues here: content and conduct. On content: - you're right that there are major gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of topics about women, and topics outside the English-speaking world (or Anglo-Saxon culture). It's something for the community to address by encouraging more content creation and diversifying the editor population. There's a great essay on this at WP:BIAS - I draw particular attention to this good advice: "Read about the perspectives and issues of concern to others. Attempt to represent these in your editing. Invite others to edit. Be respectful of others. Work to understand your own biases and avoid reflecting them in your editing." Arbcom has no particular role in addressing content gaps; how I personally plan to address this aspect of the issue is by continuing as an active content contributor, including on articles relating to my own under-represented (South Pacific) region. On conduct: - the editing environment should both maximise high-quality content creation and ensure that all editors are treated equally regardless of ethnicity, gender or any other personal characteristic. If an editor's conduct is actively disruptive to the content creation process or is driving away others on personal grounds, then that is appropriately a matter for the dispute resolution process of which Arbcom is a part. This applies to all editors, across all topics. We don't need hypersensitivity and we don't need a "cookie cutter" approach; we just need common sense, a willingness to act against disruption, and a focus on outcomes over bureaucracy. That's the approach I've previously taken as an administrator and former arbitrator, and would be what I brought to the Committee if re-elected this year.

LFaraone

Experience in security matters

I am wondering what others think of the ways the candidate's real-life experience in software and online security would impact their role in the Arbitration Committee? Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 05:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

DGG

Strong support

I am very pleased to see DGG running for this important position. I have had many Wikipedia encounters with DGG over the years and have always found DGG to be very positive, helpful, and fair.--Rpclod (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Strong support

DGG is in my view an excellent candidate, due to his consistent dedication to the web of concepts underlying WP, his organizational and analytical prowess, and his keen wit. I strongly agree that "A person who just comes here once should be helped to do what they intend." So important! WP cannot survive over the long term without constantly attracting new talent, and this means welcoming, encouraging, and educating newcomers. This line was the closer for me: "As a general rule, everything very useful is also dangerous, though the proportion varies." Victimofleisure (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Support

I have encountered DGG during periods that I have frequented AfD, and found him to be reasonable, knowledgeable in wikipedia policy and consensus, level headed, calm, and respectful. I think he will make a fine arbitrator. Fieari (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Support

Willing to take a balanced position on outing versus undisclosed paid editing and therefore has my support. Has done a good job so far. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 28 November 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)

Writ Keeper

indifferent?

Sorry to say this but the "Eh, why not?" suggests indifference and feels off-putting. First impressions matter, particularly when interacting with strangers.Victimofleisure (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I like it. Halbared (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

DeltaQuad

Re: Sarah777

@Sarah777: If you look, those four accounts were blocked by DeltaQuad as old accounts. Not entirely sure why (account security, maybe?) but it's not a block for any actual disruption. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

OK - thanks. I wasn't sure why there were so many dead accounts - I thought duplicate accounts were verboten on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 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) 12:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@BlackAmerican: I see that you did voice a question on her "Questions for this candidate" page, therefore might this question (above) be better suited to be repositioned there, along with your other question, as well as deleted from here? It doesn't seem that it belongs in the "discussion" when it's in fact a question directly for her. (NB: I in no way am meaning to be rude; just trying to ensure that things are in their appropriate place, so as to minimize clutter and/or misplaced items) PolymathGirl (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that we must still deal with bias issues, whether gender or other. People will always harbor biases; however, when it comes to any type of public decision, there are always other factors to consider, which is how I determined that DeltaQuad would be an excellent choice in this capacity. We must learn to leave our biases at home and harbor them only in private, because in the public arena, only intelligence, wisdom, willingness to help others and perhaps achievements on some levels, only these factors will improve things, whether they be reference works, nations or global issues.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 18:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Minority status is important

In an ongoing effort to combat the Gender bias on Wikipedia, there's something to be said for including women in all administrative groups/levels. Albeit I'm biased, however, considering furthermore that A. she's got experience since 2014, as well as B. her GLBT minority status and BPD mental health disclosure (from her User page), it seems that she's an important person to have on board if we're actually going to be serious about "countering systemic bias" (versus just "feel good" measures). Having that perspective, combined with her 2 years of experience, makes her a solid candidate.

This may be my first time ever participating in any sort of election here on Wikipedia, however I'm just "calling it as I see it," and reminding people that we can't just "well-wish"; that we have to take active measures to combat systemic biases, by consciously including oft-overlooked minorities. (the same could be said for Mkdw's statement about work on those minority task forces) PolymathGirl (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Mkdw

I do not know Mkdw well, but I did have some interaction with this editor several years ago in WP:WikiProject Vancouver. At the time, I found Mkdw to be friendly, reasonable, and easy to work with. Moisejp (talk) 14:44, 22 November 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) 12:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@BlackAmerican: If you're talking about as a functionary, I would handle an SPI in exactly the same way I have always handled SPI cases. I would examine the evidence against the editors based upon diffs, edit summaries, logs, tendencies, area of interest, history of the accounts (such as when they were created), and technical evidence. SPI is not a fishing expedition and there needs to be a convergence of evidence either behaviourally, technically, or both that surpasses a threshold for anything to be actionable administratively. Merely having experience with the markup language would not be sufficient grounds alone and editors investigating these cases must be careful to ensure they're not inadvertently outing someone using a legitimate alternate account. These are procedures and best practices (among many others) followed at SPI that all editors should adhere to regardless of their appointment to ArbCom or not. Mkdw^talk 17:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I have seen a number of people blocked after an argument or debate on AFD's based upon an admin saying they are not a new account. Even when they say they are from other wiki, they are ignored. I find this to be quite unfair and wonder if changes will ever come to this issue. BlackAmerican (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Were they engaging in meat or sock puppetry as outlined in WP:SOCK? Were they blocked based upon behavioural and technical evidence or did an WP:SPI determine there was enough evidence to reasonably indicate they were involved in meat or sock puppetry? There is typically a lengthy queue for unblock requests. Were their unblock requests eventually responded to and either granted or denied? Did they file multiple requests? Were their unblock requests in line with WP:GAPB? Did they eventually appeal their block via the UTRS or directly to ArbCom? Do you believe any of these blocks violated our current policies and guidelines? If not, have you or they attempted to amend our blocking policy through community consensus such as via WP:RFC? I'm asking all these questions because there are a lot of steps before an ArbCom case when it comes to editorial conduct.

It's important to note that ArbCom does not decide matters of editorial or site policy. If a case was brought against an admin for misuse of their tools such as blocking editors beyond the scope and provisions of WP:BLOCK and other relevant policies, then ArbCom would likely investigate the matter. Beyond that, actions taken that are deemed by some as "unfair" but fall within our policies and guidelines are not within the jurisdiction of ArbCom to address. Mkdw^talk 20:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Salvidrim!

Layout/format issue

I can't figure out why a "1." shows up to the left of the box with my answer to Biblioworm, it doesn't for the others. If someone can fix that I'd be very thankful.... pinging Mike V or JJMC89 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: I've fixed it. There were missing #'s. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I seem to recall seeing the issue before that and trying to remove said # but I must've been the one who broke it in the first place. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Question followup

Thanks for your honesty with your answers, though I admit I am concerned with your "longing to appear as a rebellious devil-may-care badass" and how that might affect your judgment as an arbitrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Every guy wants to be James Dean or Indiana Jonnes or Han Solo at some point. Everybody tries to be cool, especially on places like Reddit or with co-workers around the water cooler. It doesn't change how one is when working seriously, for example either at my day job or on Wikipedia. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

---