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

General questions

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

   A: With an eighteen member Arbitration Committee, I do not consider it necessary for me or anyone else to be the jack of all trades, though I will probably dabble in all of these things at some point. That being said, (h) and (i) sound right up my alley, since I already do those things very frequently as the operator of four delightful Wikipedia bots which play a substantial role in certain processes. Think about it: since my RFC bot made its debut in 2007, I have been able to respond to the needs of those who use my bots, respond to requests to augment services, and even engage certain sections of the community where I believed my services would be beneficial. A user active at Wikipedia:Requested moves requested that I automated the process, and I followed through on it. Wikipedia:Good article nominations heard my interest in automating their process, and I heard their voices as I fine-tuned the bot and created the most user-friendly experience possible. Over one year later, the list is now updated automatically. Not to mention the myriad occasions where I would have to account for my bots' numerous malfunctions. Everything I have done to date with regard to my bot work has been made possible because I can effectively communicate my interests and needs, and I am receptive to the voices of others. If I can rationalize the often controversial work of the Arbitration Committee in the eyes of others, helping to create a more collegial editing environment, then I will say mission accomplished.

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

   A: First of all, I am not a terribly private individual. My name is on my user page, and my username is in fact derived from my real name. I am comfortable with this. In the event I make enemies, which is unfortunately inevitable in this line of work, I suppose the best thing I could do is not let their words get to me. As for the typical stresses associated with ArbCom work, I could do what has allowed me to stay on Wikipedia for six years in fairly good terms: not let it consume me. I intend on being an active member of the Committee, certainly, but it will not be my full-time job. Again, I believe the purpose of the 18-member committee is to allow the work to be spread out.

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

     A: Copyright is a useful justification for the banning of posting private e-mails, but I don't consider it the real reason. I think people assume that an e-mail between them and another person — and no others — is considered private conversation. The degree to which that is true is of course questionable, but it is still the polite thing to not post e-mails in the public arena without prior warning. With editors taking the initiative to be polite, we can achieve a more collegial editing environment.

   • (b) "Responsibility"

     A: This seems like common sense to me. People should generally be ready to explain why they took the course of action they took, especially since more often than not, actions will have a reason behind them and not be entirely capricious. With the understanding of why people do things, we can build trust. Of course, there are also the sensitive situations where people cannot express so openly why they do certain things. In those cases, I consider disclosure with the trustworthy ArbCom to be a reasonable course of action.

   • (c) "Perceived legal threats"

     A: I definitely agree with the third sentence. However, I can see a case where a person used terms with application in law in a more vernacular way than an "I'm going to sue you" way. I probably have, accidentally of course. Should an editor be pressed on it, however, and said editor denies making a legal threat, I would assume good faith on their behalf and ask them to rephrase in such a way that it does not sound like they are going to pursue court action.

   • (d) "Outing"

     A: I think it stands to reason that you are not outing that I live in Washington, D.C. if I say "I live in Washington, D.C." on my user page. The part of the statement which interests me, however, is "If a user has redacted that information, their wishes should be respected." My belief on this is that because of how the Internet works, once you open the can of worms you cannot necessarily corral them all back into the can. However, if a Wikipedia user requests that his or her personal information is not brought up, that should certainly be honored in spite of the Internet's eternal memory. Being considerate of others' privacy concerns is necessary for a collegial editing environment.

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

   A: Consider an editor that usually resolves his or her conflicts before they end up at the arbitration stage, but one situation just couldn't be resolved that way and he or she is then brought to arbitration. If this particular editor realizes that he or she really dropped the ball and wants to do better, I would prefer leniency — a mentorship with a trustworthy editor over an outright ban. After all, the stresses of arbitration would probably be enough to make an editor turn around. What about in a situation where an editor is typically constructive, but there's that one topic that always causes problems? A topic ban, barring a mentorship, would be useful there. I generally consider a sitewide ban to be a last resort, as it is better to retain editors where we can and address the causes of problems than to simply shove them out the door, which may actually backfire if a sincere editor lashes out in resentment of a ban. Thus you could say I generally believe in second chances. Though if an editor simply keeps causing problems, at some point, something's gotta give.

   As for administrators, I believe they should be held to higher standards than non-administrators. However, this does not mean that one misstep means they're criminals. Administrating over a website subject to all the crap that Wikipedia is can be incredibly stressful. If the stress gets to an admin so much that they end up at ArbCom, a timeout period without adminship could prove useful, for both the sanity of the administrator and the editing environment of Wikipedia. If an admin proves time and time again that he or she just cannot handle adminship without it being a problem, removing their adminship on an indefinite basis may be an unfortunate necessity. For such a desysopping to be carried out even though it is the admin's first time at ArbCom, I guess that would happen for an administrator who is completely uncompromising and not interested in upholding the idea that administrators represent the best of the community.

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

   A: I agree that ArbCom is not a legislative body. The legitimacy of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is derived from the consensus of the editors, and changes in policy should thus be grounded in consensus. Then what is ArbCom's role in dealing with inconsistencies and gray areas? I do not consider it outside of ArbCom's reach to order an RFC on the policy, using its bully pulpit to increase awareness of a very problematic policy flaw. If the issue of policy is resolved here, then great. Otherwise, the disputing editors would have to agree to disagree, to recognize that, say, with consensus for neither A nor B, both A and B are acceptable. If ArbCom were to even step in and say, as a temporary solution, "We are going with X," it would not help keep the peace.

   Consider date delinking, which I had a tangential role in by virtue of volunteering to write the bot. It did not become acceptable because ArbCom decided as a provisional solution, "we support date delinking." It became acceptable as time went on, the issue became less contentious, and consensus was achieved for a full-date unlinking bot. Had ArbCom given up on waiting for consensus agreed to delinking, it would have set off a wave of delinking, justified by some "Mandate of ArbCom," with those who favor date linking feeling rightfully screwed over by the man. Yet by grace of the standard that ArbCom does not involve itself in policy, that didn't happen. Consensus was achieved as it was supposed to be.

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

   A: It is my belief that the primary purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to ensure and protect a collegial editing environment. Largely for the reasons I stated above for ArbCom not getting involved in policy writing, ArbCom should similarly not be involved in writing articles, though it can, as I mentioned in an earlier answer, order an RFC to take place, using the bully pulpit of ArbCom to raise awareness of an issue. As for setting up a binding dispute resolution system for long-term content disputes, well, would it work? Is it the proper role of the Arbitration Committee to make consensus exist where one could not be established? The Arbitration Committee could set up the structure to give order to chaos, but the solution would have to come from people who knew what they were talking about. I should not be deemed a supreme editor over the Armenian-Azerbaijani War or global warming by virtue of being an arbitrator, were I to be elected.

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

   A: I applaud Gibraltar for taking a topic of such controversy and subjecting it to extra behavioral scrutiny while keeping a closer eye (if not banning) the trouble makers, allowing for a more collegial editing environment on a topic which has been controversial for hundreds of years. Has this caused the drama to disappear? I will concede that it has not, but what matters is that there is more supervision. As for MZMcBride 2, I feel that ArbCom was too lenient, especially since MZMcBride has been before ArbCom before and has created unnecessary drama before.

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

   A: What is there left to change? The Committee has become a tightly ran, regimented ship, practically like a real-life court. I will be completely honest and say I do not know what I would change.

Individual questions

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

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

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

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

1. Question from Sven Manguard: Please explain your account history. Please address: Why are you no longer using the account messedrocker? Why does it appear that your user rights have been modified to give you sysop privileges twice, while it does not appear that the rights were ever removed? and Why does it appear that the account harej went through a series of deletions and renamings in 2009. (log)

   A: A fair question. A while back I started identifying on IRC as "harej," so I wanted to reserve the username on Wikipedia. Thus I registered "Harej" and did not make edits with it. From my registration in November 2004 until my rename in March 2009, I edited under the username "Messedrocker." (That username has since been hijacked.) In March of 2009 I decided that I wanted my username to be "Harej," so having control over both accounts, I requested to have the old "Harej" account renamed to "Harej (usurped)" and "Messedrocker" changed to "Harej".

   As for the resysoppings, there was a period of eight or so months I spent without adminship; my log on Meta should reflect the desysopping of December 2007, given that desysopping is a steward function. The desysopping was because I wanted to take a break from adminship duties. The logs to which you link to should reflect my resysopping in August 2008. I apologize sincerely for my confusing username history, and I hope to have clarified any confusion. All my edits are under my current username.

2. Question from MLauba: Over the past year, several arbitrators have been subjected to intense scrutiny over inadvertent copy /pasting or close paraphrasing in their contributions, some of it possibly due to political reasons. If elected, assuming such concerns get raised, what course of actions would you take to address the issues?

   A: First of all, if you know of any copyright violations I may have committed, please contact me about them. If it indeed turns out I have committed some act of copyright infringement, I will own up to it and admit fault. It would be the right thing to do. If other arbitrators were caught, I would ask them to do the same.