Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Shell Kinney/Questions

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Unsure about the election process?
- Please review the election rules.
Issue with inappropriate commentary or questions?
- Please notify an election volunteer.

Questions from Lar

Note to readers: This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2010/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and the year before and modified to fit changes in circumstance.

Notes to respondents

In some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so.
Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.
It is also Not Helpful to answer "yes, yes, no, yes" (because you are expecting people to count on their fingers which answers go with which questions...) go ahead and intersperse your answers. We'll know it was you. No need to sign each part unless you want us to know which parts you answered when.
For those of you that ran last year (or the year before, etc.), feel free to cut and paste a previous year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded so watch out for that.
Where a question overlaps one of the standard questions I have tried to note that and explain what elaboration is desired.

The questions

Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.

b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.

c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)

d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - a trial, which ended up being called WP:Pending changes instead. Please comment on the trial results as they specifically relate to the BLP problem. (there is another question about revisions generally) Would you do anything different in the actual implementation?

e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
A: Nope, but we're getting there. I was actually chatting about this just the other day and it occurred to me that a project, similar to the Copyright Cleanup project might really be helpful. We've developed a number of different ideas for cleanup over the past year, but there's not really a central place for tracking and collaboration. As we continue to come up with new ideas to keep biographies under surveillance, clean up any problems we have and educate new editors, it would be great to have a one-stop-shop for all of that information. I'm afraid I don't have tons of spare time at the moment, but if anyone is interested in the idea, I'd be happy to help out.
I'm not terribly fond of the idea of a) opting out as it's own policy, but we do already practice it to some degree. At times AfDs are started because of the subject's request and I think we're good, as a community, at taking their concerns into consideration; it can tip the scales in cases where notability isn't strongly established. I think we need to keep being sensitive to those concerns and mindful that what we do on the project can have real world consequences.
I've been in favor of b) defaulting to deletion for a while now. Because biographies (especially those that aren't routinely watched or cared for) can be so problematic, cases where an article isn't a clear keep can be a concern. If the community isn't even sure if we should have the article, it's much more likely not to get the attention it deserves. We have to be careful though that the reasons to delete in these cases are policy-based.
c) Liberal semi-protection has always been a good idea, especially for low traffic articles where problems may not be spotted as quickly. In other cases where there are persistent attempts to damage an article, we often find that we're dealing with someone taking out their frustration with the subject and they're just not as likely to move on as random vandals.
d) and e) are related. The Flagged Protection trial was interesting, but I'm not sure it goes far enough. There were also a number of comments about the extra work it created and a concern that the work wouldn't get done at low trafficked articles. In the long run though, I'm not sure we really gathered enough data to make any educated decisions on how well it worked. Flagged revisions is still my favorite option; the public version stays stable, editors don't have to review every single revision and vandals don't get gratification from their edits or making us work harder.
Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?

b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?

c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
Note: this question has some overlap with #5 and #6 in the general set but goes farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.

A: a) Question one is about creating policy and something that the community will have to decide. ArbCom can act if someone is violating a community norm, but isn't there to prescribe what those norms should be. b) Yes, I think ArbCom has overstepped in some places while trying to find a solution to the problem. It's one thing to uphold policy or refer specific things back to the community, but other cases, like granting special administrator permissions to enforce BLP went a bit too far, which is likely why it's not really been used by the community. That is the beauty of the wiki though, ArbCom decisions are only enforceable to the extend that the community is willing to support those decisions. c) I address changing things like any other editor - by suggesting new ideas, supporting ideas I think are appropriate and helping out with solutions supported by the community when I can.
It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? Consider the controversy around some election provisions... we had an RfC on the topic early this year, but by the election we still didn't have closure on some open questions. Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
Note: there may possibly be some overlap with #7 and #8 in the general set but it's really a different tack. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.

A:In the short term there are times we look at situations and wonder what's gone wrong with consensus; often that's due to an echo chamber effect - when the same editors turn up to discuss the same issue in multiple venues, it can perpetuate problems or create an appearance of a stronger consensus. In the long term though, the community generally self-corrects given enough time - more editors notice a problem, more people get involved and situations that need more assistance eventually get attention. I've not really been fond of SecurePoll - it takes away the ability to discuss, explain our positions and limits the kinds of responses that can be made. There's many times I've looked at a discussion intending to give one opinion and been convinced otherwise by the comments of other editors. I think this is one of the strengths of our current system and more discussion should be encouraged.
Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions/Pending Changes. What did you think of the trial? Should we ultimately implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?
One of the things I think stood out for me was the number of biographies on the list of articles with the most reverted anon changes. Another thing that stood out was that anonymous vandalism didn't appear to decrease that significantly, but it's unclear whether that was because a longer period of time was needed or because those vandals are just going to play around anyways. I was disappointed that the tool seemed to be lacking in some areas, like including the review process in the article history or the ability to release an edit from pending review status. As it stands, it is an improvement over the nothing that we have now, but I'm not sure it's the best we can do. It creates a lot of additional work for editors and additional tension when reviewers disagreed about whether or not an edit should have been accepted. I think in the long run, something similar to Flagged Revisions would have less of those issues and do a better job of protecting sensitive articles.
As far as ArbCom, they really don't have a role in the discussion, at least not as a Committee. Since there's not an agreement in the community on how to handle things, there's nothing for ArbCom to enforce, but I hope that the Committee members would get involved as editors in discussing the problem and working toward a solution.
Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?

c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?

d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?

e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from 2008 in that it's more extensive)

f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?

g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from 2008)
Note: this ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.

a) & b) Absolutely. One of our strengths is the ability for anyone to make constructive contributions to the project. Given the outside interest in certain areas of Wikipedia and the very real possibility of harassment, I certainly can't blame any editor who doesn't want to put personal information in the public eye.
c) Given that people have been bothered in real life due to their activities on Wikipedia, I can understand someone regretting a disclosure later. If at all possible, we should respect those wishes - how to respect them depends a lot on what information was released. Something like a location or employer or another bit of information that could possibly be used to locate a contributor should probably be oversighted. In other cases where a real name is mentioned, deletion or account renaming might be appropriate. People should realize that even if we do take reasonable steps to help put the cat back in the bag, there's just no guarantee that they can regain their anonymity.
d) Whether or not you provide the real name of an editor or just a link to that name, the result is the same. If there's a concern that someone is editing inappropriately because of who they are, there's always the option to bring up the issue privately with ArbCom.
e)Yes and I've had some people tell me I'm crazy for it. I don't think it should ever be a requirement, especially given the kind of attacks ArbCom members have been subject to in the past (and I'm sure this will continue to be an issue). I don't believe there would be any real benefit; whatever their name, they're still the folks the community voted for.
f) In some ways, the Foundation (and the community) does a good job of pointing out the problems with giving out identifying information and in general, internet users are educated from a young age about keeping your private life off the web. The sign-up page is a good example; we go in to a bit of detail about why creating an account with your real name might not be the best idea. The Foundation probably shouldn't get involved in trying to maintain pseudonymity, but ArbCom can at times be helpful in getting things quietly oversighted or edited to assist an editor who's found that they've released information they later regret.
g) It often depends on the reason for outing. If an editor goes too far in a conflict of interest report, they may stray in to outing without intending to cause harm - while this still warrants immediate attention in the way of oversighting, it may not require more than a warning (unless it's a repeated problem). On the other end of the spectrum, if an editor intends to cause harm with their outing, or win points in a dispute, it's likely to warrant an immediate indef block while things are sorted out. Something done off-site is more of a touchy situation, but cases where someone intentionally outs someone off-site in an attempt to influence things on-site is certainly something we need to discourage.
Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?

b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.

c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?

d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.

e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?

f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
Note: this also ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.

a) Just like any large website on the internet, the Foundation does have some responsibility to educate its users about these kinds of dangers. The signup page does a good job of describing some of these issues, but could probably go further or link to more detailed information.
b) I think the Foundation has already done what it can by proving the ability to edit anonymously or pseudonymously and maintain a clear privacy policy on the data it has access to. As far as aid, realistically it's unlikely that there's much the Foundation would be able to do, much like MySpace is unlikely be in a position to assist one of their users who is stalked because of information they release.
c) If someone who's been stalked in real life is concerned that they've been followed on to Wikipedia, a quiet word to ArbCom or even OTRS will put them in contact with people who're in a position to investigate and assist them.
d) In either case, we should immediately show them the door. As a community, we should have zero tolerance for editors who use the site to harass others.
e) It can be difficult to tell the difference at times since often, a contributor will feel harassed even if there are legitimate reasons for looking through their contributions. It's almost never a good idea to comb through the contributions of an editor you're already in a dispute with, but if you're just following up on a report somewhere, it's common sense to double-check that there aren't more problems.
f) Definitely. What to do depends a lot on why they're making the claims. If they're exhibiting problematic behavior that's caused other editors to look through their contributions repeatedly, then it's likely that the behavior needs to be addressed by mentorship or restrictions. If they seem to make that claim with a particular dispute or topic area, they may need to be encouraged or restricted to editing elsewhere.
A certain editor has been characterized as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
A: For banned editors, I think reverting all edits is the community's way of expressing that we were serious when we said they were no longer welcome to contribute to the site. Allowing a banned editor to edit is rather counter-productive to that idea. However, in cases where a banned editor has returned in some fashion and proved that they can be productive, they should be encouraged to handle their return through appropriate channels.
What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?

b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?

c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?

d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not (in each case)?

e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )

f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
A: a) Nope. While discussions about changing policy or what to do with disputes should be handled on site, there's no reason that legitimate ideas or criticisms of Wikipedia can't come from external sources.
b) I do have a blog, but it's business-related rather than personal. I did discuss Wikipedia in one post, which mainly discussed why most business really don't want articles on Wikipedia and how to handle things appropriately if they do. Its not likely I'd ever maintain a personal blog, so the chances of me blogging about Wikipedia for any other reason are pretty much non-existent.
c) I still tend to avoid that site like the plague, since it almost always seems to be mentioned in the context of something inappropriate going on. Outside discussions of policies and disputes can often be helpful, but I've never been impressed with the tendency to discuss editors, their motives, their real life and other such things that are more gossip than criticism.
d) I don't see anything inappropriate about it providing they conduct themselves in a reasonable manner. If they use a site elsewhere to harass Wikipedia editors, attempt to out them or generally to behave in ways that wouldn't be allowed here, then it would be their behavior, not their participation itself that's inappropriate.
e) I did sign up on Wikipedia Review at one point with the name Jareth, but I never ended up using it for anything. I can see why it might be nice if people used the same account name on outside sites like that as they do on Wikipedia, but I can't imagine there's any way we could enforce such a thing or would even want to. I think it's unfortunate the amount of effort put in to harassing Arbiters in one way or another and we certainly shouldn't encourage that kind of thing.
f) It seems that over time, we're either getting more used to the criticism or learning to ignore the trolling.
Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
A: Absolutely. At times, the community (or a small vocal portion) allows certain long term contributors to behave in ways we'd never tolerate out of a new editor or an editor without the same group of supporters. I think this is another bit of the community that tends to self-correct over time and these editors either take a break and recharge their batteries or finally wear out a significant proportion of the community.
Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
A:At times. Especially in highly disputed areas, groups of editors tend to form over time, intentionally or not. Sometimes it doesn't need addressing; if those editors support each other in a manner consistent with policy, that doesn't exclude other editors, they can be a very good influence in a topic area. However, many times it becomes a way to enforce a certain view on an article or push away editors with other ideas; in those cases, the behavior often needs to be addressed with some form of dispute resolution.
What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
It's still purple. It's been purple since just after I turned 12 and I've painted the better part of my house in various shades, so it's not likely to change at this late date. It always reminds me of the ocean at dusk, or in lighter shades of the flowers my grandmother always kept in her yard.

A quick followup on the above: Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful answers. I found it interesting to compare these with your answers last year and from 2008... I found them generally consistent. Do you think any of your views HAVE changed a lot in any particulars now that you've been on ArbCom a year, especially in ways that might not be apparent by comparing answers? ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]