Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/SirFozzie/Questions

Request from the candidate

Hi folks. I'm going to set this talk page up for additional questions and follow-ups to my answers. If you have additional questions for me, or wish to follow up on an answer, please do so here. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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?

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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?

8. 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?

9. 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)?

10. 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)?

11. What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)

Submitted 17:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Finally: Thanks for setting up this page, I hope all other candidates emulate you in this regard. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

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!

1. What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?
2. 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?

Thank you. Rschen7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rschen: Thanks for the questions:

1A) Competence is something we should strive for. It is something that we should ask all editors for. No one wants to be the editor who has to go in and clean up an error-ridden, poorly spelled, badly formatted chunk of text from an article. However, we must also remember that no one arrives on Wikipedia knowing the minutiae of how to edit here. To use myself as an example, this was one of my first edits on Wikipedia. [1]. Gee, can anyone spot the problem I made there? *grins*. However, we must not confuse "what people do not know" with "what people CAN not do or WILL not do. The first is correctable. To quote a show from when I was growing up, knowing, indeed is half the battle. However, people who cannot or will not learn how to do things right after being given every opportunity to learn how to do it.. there and then we have a problem.

1B) I'm of two minds here, really. Wikipedia is indeed not therapy, but we must not ever forget that it is an encyclopedia that is built, paragraph by paragraph, article by article, by people. Mortal, fallible people. People who will disagree, squabble and feel so strongly about what they're doing here that it spills over. That was my opinion with things like Right to Vanish, where it's really better to not drag someone back time and time again to face the slings and arrows of those who wished to castigate their flaws, actual or perceived. I think that I agree with it as stated, that the encyclopedia is bigger then any one editor. But it is that alternate interpretation that all in all, we're just another brick in the wall and that there's no humanity to it, that I think I have a problem with.

2) We must all remember that Wikipedia works on the consensus model. I have nothing but respect for those who work in the various Wikiprojects, and think in total that they are a massive net plus to the encyclopedia, as they have the ability to bootstrap up a whole area of articles. However, we must remember that WP:OWN applies to groups of editors as well as individual editors. If there's others who disagree with the guidelines as set up by various projects, stating "Well, the relevant WikiProject built the rules, so that's the way we're going to do it", is not going to fly. So, in short, they have a voice in the discussion, and a loud voice at that, but they must take care not to drown out the dissenting voices if there's good arguments behind them.

Thanks for your questions again, if you have any further follow up questions or want me to explain further, let me know. SirFozzie (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of question by Shooterwalker

1. Thanks for being clear with your answer! And good luck with the election. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

   Shooterwalker, please note that questions may be no more than 75 words. Future questions that exceed the limit will be edited back by the election coordinators. We ask that you observe the arrangements for keeping questions under control, for the voters' sake. You may take this matter up on the election talk page if you wish. Tony (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry for the inconvenience. I thought that the standard would be enforced in spirit, not to the exact letter and number. I intend to ask questions to other candidates so I'll stay on top of it next time. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)