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]

I don't think any of my views have changed drastically, though after the trial of Flagged Protection, I feel even more strongly that Flagged Revisions is the better option (but I'll take whatever we can get). I understand better now how quickly and seriously a faction can impact an area of Wikipedia and how difficult it can be to get outside involvement. I have a little less tolerance for outing having seen some of the real world consequences and the lengths some outers will go to. I have even more respect for the tremendous amount of work performed by functionaries and clerks on a daily basis. So the last year has probably given me more experience in some areas or more data to go on, but the issues the community is dealing with still seem pretty much the same. Shell ^babelfish 15:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another followup. With the hindsight of a day or 3, what do you think of this exchange? As I recall, you chastised me during the CC case for sometimes acting in ways unbecoming an admin. And you had a point, I did let the baiting and backbiting (which spanned months and months, and came from many many participants) get to me. But I'm curious, do you think your responses in that thread would be fairly characterized as "acting in ways unbecoming an admin?" We necessarily hold arbs to a high standard. But do we hold them to too high a standard? ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, probably not, unless sarcasm has suddenly become "conduct unbecoming", but it's quite possible I'm too close to the situation to look at it objectively. When I first received that complaint about an earlier comment I made, I was confused by the comments but went and reviewed what I had posted. When I realized that even though I was referring to a very small group of editors it could easily be misinterpreted to refer to a larger group (who didn't deserve the implication), I immediately apologized. I should have chosen my words more carefully; the internet can be like that at times - you don't always know if everyone who views your post will know the context, so you have to be careful that it can be understood in a vacuum. One thing I have noticed from these recent conversations is that over time, I've drifted a bit from my "professional voice" into my more "personal voice". While on one hand it's a good thing because that means that I'm comfortable working at Wikipedia and enjoying my participation here, it's also a bad thing because I tend to take more shortcuts in writing and use humor to personalize things - both things that can cause misunderstandings. I'm working to reverse that and stick to my more "professional voice" when editing here. Shell ^babelfish

I realized this morning that I had missed one of your questions in my response. No, I don't think we hold Arbs to too high a standard - we should expect a great deal from their behavior. Where I think we fail a bit is in our response to things. No one is going to be perfect; I think we ought to allow for mistakes (meaning the occasional error, not a pattern of problems) and stick to criticizing the content rather than the person. There's a tendency at times to make disparaging remarks when someone disagrees with a decision. Instead of addressing the meat of the concern, someone may question the integrity, honesty or motives of those involved - and that's not something limited to Arbs, it really shouldn't be happening anywhere on Wikipedia. There is always room for criticism and community discussion and the possibility for change when we focus on the issues, rather than the people involved. Shell ^babelfish 10:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Sven Manguard

I decided to ask these questions after reflecting on an hour long conversation over the IRC with an editor that I hold in very high regard. I intermixed her concerns with my own concerns to form this short list of general questions. Please answer them truthfully, and draw upon whatever experiences or knowledge you possess. I apologize in advance for all the questions being compound questions. Thanks in advance, sincerely, Sven Manguard _Talk

What is the greatest threat to the long term survivability or viability of Wikipedia? If the threat is currently affecting Wikipedia, what actions can be done to limit it? If the the threat is not yet affecting the project, what actions can be taken to keep it that way? What is the overall health of the project today?
A. I think our biggest challenges are retaining editors, keeping participation levels high and encouraging new editors to join. Wikipedia is no longer a novelty and our mass of intertwined policies and procedures can be confusing at the best of times. While we still create content apace, it seems as if we have fewer editors interested in helping answer RfCs, leading wikiprojects or standing for the administrator bit. I've noticed a number of editors express reservations about running in this election due to a concern that they will be treated poorly and I wonder if that isn't a more widespread problem. We're not quite as welcoming to newbies, tolerate a bit more nastiness in content disputes and have almost accepted the idea that with elevated permissions comes more personal attacks.
What are the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of the project? What processes do we do well, and what processes fail? What content areas do we excel at and where do we need to improve?
A.I think our strengths are diversity of opinions and skills, the ability to try new things to address challenges and a remarkable wealth of content. Our weaknesses are personalization of disputes, monitoring the hordes of articles, instruction creep and ennui. Most of our processes work well and evolve as new issues are noted. I'd have to pick RfC as a process that's currently broken; it hasn't evolved as much and as a result has stagnated. Content RfCs which are intended to encourage a wider community discussion often get few, if any, responses. User RfCs receive more attention, but often fail to reach a conclusion or define an appropriate course of action. We excel at having a wide variety of content, many of which are excellent articles. We still fumble a bit on how best to handle biographies, keep them from harm and monitor their development.
What is your view on the current level of participation in Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have enough active contributors today? Does it have too many?
A. I actually can't imagine a point where there would be too many contributors or even enough; there are always more things to do for the project than grains of sand on the beach.
Does Wikipedia do a good job at retaining its active contributors? What strengths and weaknesses within the project can you point to that affect retention? Are recent high profile burnouts indicative of a problem within the project or are they unfortunate but isolated events?
A. Not really. Since I'm often reviewing diffs from the past, I'm frequently reminded that many excellent contributors are no longer active. I'm sure that some of that is due to a change in circumstances or interests, but there are many cases where an editor seems to have left because they felt under appreciated or even abused. I think our biggest challenge is remembering that there's a person behind those lines of text that wants to be treated with respect and consideration.
Do you believe that the project should prioritize on improving existing content or creating new content. Is there an ideal ratio of creation:improvement? For the purposes of this question, assume that you have complete control over where the community as a whole focuses their efforts. This is, of course, a hypothetical situation.
A. I think that we reward both types of contribution, though improving existing content is often the more difficult and thankless part of the equation. Rather than focusing whether an article is new or has been around for years, I think we need to focus on quality - for instance, encourage a couple of well-referenced paragraphs over a single-sentence stub.
Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
A. Absolutely. I'm probably the odd duck out since I signed up for an account before making an edit (and I read policy - I'd probably be tagged as a sockpuppet nowadays), but it's not likely that I would have done so without looking and realizing that yes, anyone really could edit. Many editors have a story that starts "Well, I edited a few times as an IP address and decided that I liked it..."; I think we'd be shutting out a wealth of potential contributors without that ability.
If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
A. I would turn on Flagged Revisions and make it mandatory for all BLPs. I work with OTRS, so not only do I see the problems we encounter on-wiki, I hear the personal stories of people who have been affected by damage to one of our articles. Being the top response for a search on most any person is a heady thing, and something we should take very seriously. Shell ^babelfish 12:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom election questions from Rschen7754

Due to the changed format of this year's election questioning, I have removed all the questions that are covered by the general election questions (but please be sure to answer those thoroughly!) If you wouldn't mind answering the following brief questions that evaluate areas not covered by the general questions, that would be great!

What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?

Both are good essays; they explain in different ways why topic and site bans became part of the community's toolbox. Wikipedia works because in general, we've agreed on how to do things. As an online community, we have a very limited ability to determine reasons or intentions, but we can address the effect actions have.

Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?

That sounds like an area which could benefit from a larger community discussion. When a small group of editors can't find consensus, appealing to a wider set of the community can help sort things out. If the larger discussion supports the original interpretation, even those who may significantly disagree are expected to respect that consensus. Shell ^babelfish 12:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of question by Michael C Price

By transparency I mean the ability of others to follow the reasoning of arbcom, see that principles are aplied consistently etc. In this example I didn't see such transparency. You are describing an editor's descriptions of other editors' actions (i.e. not a PA) as an uncivil act in itself. Telling another editor (in this case mosty admins) that they are behaving in an inappropriate fashion is an essential part of the checks and balances of community feedback. That this feedback was punished I find disturbing and regrettable. Who will dare ask an admin to consider that they have, for example, a COI and to desist again? It seems to me that you don't actually understand what incivility means. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A:I think what's important about why this finding came about isn't simple incivility, nor is it about criticizing admins - we have many avenues for reporting those types of concerns (e.g. ANI, RfC, ArbCom) that this editor chose not to use. There's certainly nothing wrong with starting by talking to the admin you have a concern over and as you pointed out, those first interactions (where words like "highly inappropriate" were used) look to be legitimate attempts to raise a concern. What concerns me, and the reasons I voted for the finding, was the progression of these comments over time. When the editor didn't receive a favorable response, he never moved on to other dispute resolution. Instead, he returned to the same people, repeatedly, for a period of months and went from "inappropriate" to calling them "spiteful" or "biased". It also became obvious that he felt these administrators were on one "side" of the dispute or that they were protecting the opposing "side" of the dispute. In one case he continued to bring up an action from several years ago that was widely upheld by the community and demand that because he disagreed the admin should undo it. In short, this is what we generally call battleground behavior with a bit of incivility and failure to accept consensus thrown in. Your mileage may vary.

(the above response references me, and therefore I reserve the right to respond) Shell, you are misrepresenting the situation by saying there was a "progression of these comments over time". There were multiple admins involved (at least 5 I believe, over the span of more than 6 months), and the only one which involved comments over an extended period of time was 2/0 -- which was a courtesy to 2/0 because I respected him and believed he could work it out. The other admin diffs you collected were single instance warnings from me with no further action. Once again, you seem to be shifting the goalposts, coming up with new rationales for questionable findings whenever someone points out the flaws in your original wording.

Furthermore, you are once again raising an issue with no supporting documentation in your statement "In one case he continued to bring up an action from several years ago that was widely upheld by the community and demand that because he disagreed the admin should undo it." What is this referring to? Which admin action from "two years ago" did I supposedly raise and demand be overturn? This appears to be a complete fabrication and I am requesting that you supply details so that I may defend it, or retract it. ATren (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, you are straying from the issue of civility. No matter what your views of Atren's criticising of admins (and our mileage does vary on that matter) his actions were not uncivil, and I had hoped to see a frank admission to that effect. I am concerned that your actions reflect an increasingly common pattern amongst admins/arbs in general, whereby "civility" is used as blunt weapon to punish editors who are disliked, for one reason or another, fairly or unfairly, leading to the widespread view that arbcom is not impartial. This is, of course, to the long term detriment of the project. --cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of question by GiacomoReturned

Individual Question 5, from GiacomoReturned, was worded a tad bit strongly, almost as if it's designed to make a point rather than ask a question. Is this appropriate considering he's also running? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this isn't a question for Shell specifically, but a question for the wider community! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What exactly are you planning to do in future to protect Arbs from criticism and prevent Arbs being held to the same standards as other editors?" looks like a perfectly good question to me. (A comparison between the treatment of Geogre with that of Rlevse comes to my mind, at least. Now that was grave-dancing.) It's a sarcastic question, of course, but that's not verboten, is it? Wasn't Shell just expressing her tolerance for sarcasm, higher up on this page? Ah yes, here:

Lar: "But do we hold [arbs] to too high a standard?" Shell: "Well, probably not, unless sarcasm has suddenly become "conduct unbecoming"."

I'd be more inclined to take issue with Shell's answer than Giano's question, because I don't see any relevance in the answer. None. That makes it a kind of contemptuous way to handle questions from the community. Was that the idea: expressing contempt? Bishonen | talk 16:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

And I have just noticed that Ms kinney changed my question [1] to put herself in a better light. Oh dear, she must be worried. So must CMLIITH as he's trying to draw attention to two other candidates. I shall not be descending to the tricks of thse two. I don't need to. Giacomo 17:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original question

The original question was as below. On the question page is has been edited down to 75 words.

Question: This edit proves [2] that You clearly take plagiarism as a minor offence, and criticising an Arb as a huge offence. You clearly have no respect for those who beaver away reviewing FACs etc. Please don't bother to deny it; that is too apparent for that. However, what exactly are you planning to do in future to protect Arbs from criticism and prevent Arbs being held to the same standards as other editors? We have seen that you are prepared to descend to personal attack, insult and ridicule in order to protect other Arbs, will you be maintaining this stance or furthering it? Finally, should Arbs be long standing editors who know right from wrong before standing? Giacomo 08:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Please confine yourself to questions put to you. Giacomo 15:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page in which Ms Kinney launched her attack on me, regarding the above matter, has now been deleted and salted. "(Protection log); 08:32 . . Jc37 (talk | contribs) protected User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair [create=sysop] (indefinite) (per MfD)" Also deleted was a mirror page [3] in my user space intended to allow people to see these supressed attacks. Most people would consider this an almost speedy keep [ Giacomo 08:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the page restored, pending a WP:DRV discussion. For the moment voters may view the diff in question. Jehochman ^Talk 17:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've had it restored? - more of a combined battering ram for free information and honesty [4]. Giacomo 18:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]