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



Questions from Sven Manguard[edit]

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

  1. 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. Summary - If we survive editor dropoff and difficult interface issues (potentially addressed with a mixture of outreach, communication/awareness, software improvement, and improved funding for these), the deeper structural issues are divisions and fragmentation in the community, causing wasted effort and loss of focus and eventual degradation. Examples such as content vs. bureaucracy, a civility policy many reject, RFA, invitation to edit with zero help and many rules to fall foul of, poor decision making, are the visible face. These arise because Wikipedia contains many views and perspective from an era when it was tiny and now we're world scale; issues and divisions that weren't a problem then are an issue now.

    The resulting friction, discouragement, and inability to make efficient major decisions does great harm. We need to revisit the pillars that are needed by 2020 and how we get there, or we risk failure to adapt, and letting divisions and bureaucracy ruin a vibrant project. There are solutions, however none are easy: for example (but not limited to) a "call to arms" and decision by the community to address perceived major issues, eventualism (eventually as time passes problems and divisions get overcome somehow, which they do), trust in the wiki process, decentralization, better or collaboration methods. Right now so much is changing that we could be seeing the first signs of maturity and sorting issues out (climate charnge RFAR? strategy project? WMF able to fund areas underpinning growth? Chapter outreach?). Or we could be seeing the first signs of failing to do so (editor dropoff? unresolved issues? divisions increasing? WMF more remote?). I'm not sure, ask me in 10 years. What do we do now? We focus on basics - help newcomers, improve and simplify process, keep a focus on content, have an inclusive not exclusive outlook, make editing more enjoyable, and develop ways work together to face issues maturely when they come up rather than arguing years over them.

  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
    A mix. We can't control that mix so no point speculating on the "best balance". Improving poor or new articles to a minimum baseline (including references, apparent neutrality, gross structure, and tone) should be a priority though - once content exists it should at least be a quality that doesn't make us cringe. Readers and critics probably notice our failings much quicker than our successes. One cringeworthy article or uncorrected BLP allowed to slip through in a year can easily overshadow dozens of superb FACs.
  6. Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
    A. Yes. But I don't think recording their edits as a publicly displayed IP is how I'd do it. Why should people who don't want to make an account, have their IP public? For example you could hypothetically generate a reliable replacement for the last two octets (which often allows enough to recognize the same likely user in page history) and display them as [[User:IP-123.123.nnn.nnn]] - private enough, preserves attribution if done right, and yet probably doesn't hamper antivandalism work much if at all.
  7. If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
    A. Assuming Special:MakeCoffee isn't feasible, I'm torn between two directions:
    1. Changes that make Wikipedia more accessible and approachable for non-editors and newcomers (eg: ease of use, interface, simplicity of interface, helpfulness to newcomers), and
    2. Changes that make collaboration and content development easier and more fun, and reduce distractions for editors (eg: ways to improve consensus-seeking, ways to ensure valuable experts and dedicated content writers don't have to spent time arguing the same high school stuff repeatedly, ways to minimize the time people waste on non-content work like ANI and petty discussions over behavior, better dispute handling, perennial divisive issues).

    Both matter. Faced with a tough choice and just one imagined change, I'm going for a radical change seen positively at the strategy taskforce that helps both of these and is self-reinforcing. We have a way to recognize users who are trusted in tool related judgments (they become administrators after scrutiny of their track record). But we have no way to highlight users who are trusted as content editors, even though our product is content not administration. Community trust to delete pages or block users is easily visible. But many people don't want to be admins, they want to work on content. Where is the equivalent sign of trust by the community that a user sources reliably, edits neutrally, creates content to a good standard, and collaborates collegially, on content?

    There is not one way to recognize users whose content work is generally agreed to be high standard across a wide range of areas after peer scrutiny of their entire history. They may not be FAC writers, or come to attention, or want "status". But when there is a dispute or an edit-war torn article, those are the users we want to encourage to be there. When a newcomer seeks advice on an article, that's the kind of user he/she wants to be able to quickly identify. When newcomers join, that's the standard we want them to feel encouraged in and aspire to.

    So I would like to see a parallel means of recognition for content writers, that results in those trusted by the community to be consistently high quality neutral careful editors being recognized somehow. The payoff could be substantial. Newcomers and existing editors would be clear on users likely to offer good advice or support in a dispute without having to master templates and find noticeboards and admins. If "high quality editing" users are more identifiable, more will want that, encouraging a general move to a better style of editorship and collaboration. The motivation aspect would encourage many users to learn good editing in the view of their peers; once achieved it's a valued achievement they won't want to imperil, so it also encourages and then locks in quality editing in the community. We can make clear in ((Welcome)) that this is an informal standard we'd like everyone to achieve and will help them work towards. In the case of difficult edit wars, we would have hundreds or thousands of quickly located users whose editing even in contentious areas would probably be trustworthy and who might be able to take a look.

    Once you have a public standard many people will want it. Peer standards can be incredibly powerful motivators. Achievement and its tangible recognition brings a source of pride that can be shared with family and friends and personal enjoyment which helps retention. Once many want it, those without will often care too. Once it's achieved people will value that reputation and have a motive to keep good standards. Newcomers can seek help with ease and reassurance, edit wars may have new routes to help, editor coaching may revive, and users who will never pass RFA or be FA authors and feel RFA and FAC are the only formal way users get peer recognition will have a recognition track for their trustworthy content capabilities.

    I doubt it'll happen and the inevitable concerns over a hierarchy, status seeking and process are clear to all. But you asked "what one change" and that's one I'd consider, because of the possibility of strong positive chain effects for quality editing and helpfulness (if done well) and because we really do want more users to have a tangible motivator to pick up higher quality practices as they edit.

(Answering these in reverse order for novelty value)

Questions from Lar[edit]

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 01:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC) by ++Lar: t/c

Arbcom election questions from Rschen7754[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

FT2's answer to Aiken drum's question about his block[edit]

Hi, FT2. Your link in answer to Aiken drum's question about your block on the main page links to the middle of the relevant ANI thread; I suppose because the ANI subheading at that point has the word "block" in it (referring, indeed, to my block of you). However, I would think the whole thread about the situation, found more conveniently through this link, would be of interest to the user who asked the question and indeed to others. It makes things clearer and contains many frank comments by highly respected users about what they found problematic in your conduct leading up to the block. Good diffs, too, especially in my opening statement. I should think people here would at this time be more interested in comments about you than in the comments and information by you about me that you confine your answer to Aiken drum to. You're the one standing for arbcom, not me.

Your "extended statement" is awfully long, you know. #3, which you refer to, contains no less than four separate collapsed pieces, and if I uncollapse all of it, #3 alone covers eight screens on my computer (which has a big screen). Could you indicate which parts of #3 are to do with the reasons for you resigning from the arbcom in early 2009, please? It's probably "The 'oversighted edits' matter" plus "opinion and decision" (4 1/2 screens), isn't it? I'm not blaming you for the length; you are sort of famous for going long; it's a habit which I do understand you can't just lay down like a garment. Still, it probably is a hindrance to the curious voter, who has 22, or whatever it is now, candidates to evaluate. A summary might be helpful, if you have time to provide one. I lose the thread myself, and I was there. Bishonen | talk 15:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

It was a very difficult question to answer, because on the one hand it's completely legitimate to explore how someone handles an inquiry on a significant event in their past. On the other hand perceptions obviously differ, I'm not a mind reader, and there was that possibility of accidentally rekindling old drama that would not have helped the questioner - I'm sure many people wondered if it would. It's 2 years ago now and I didn't comment then, mainly because the community decided the matter. I understand your motive at the time though, and thank you for the tone of your inquiry in discussing it.
The answer does linked to the page you mention (see wikilink: "User discussion of the block is here"). I linked to where the block itself was discussed on that page as that seemed to be the "meat" of it. I also linked to your own explanation first and foremost (and not anyone elses' view) in the first sentence, as normally nobody can explain why a user did something better than the user themselves.
You're right on interpretation. While prior events set the stage, the immediate reason was the "oversighted edits" issue plus "opinion and decision". Having not explained previously (and god knows I asked for advice repeatedly on Arbcom's list and in private but all views differed), a very clear reason is needed that explains exactly how it happened. There was also a lot of "conspiracy theory" background talk and the evidence on those needs to be disclosed and checkable too. If I posted a short version, it would be claimed to be "glossing over" stuff. Now it's appropriate and can't do any harm. So I felt it's best to do it properly (best I can), and then let people ask questions.
You're an admin so you can see one other piece of evidence here dated December 1 2008 (six weeks earlier). It's the start of a (very long) disclosure/discussion page. I had started a draft previously on the Arbcom wiki as well. Evidence that my wish to genuinely disclose was not just "words". Then I realized I was boxed between community concern and privacy policy.
A good summary would indeed help. If anyone wants to suggest and email me a summary that covers the ground, and I can use it, I'll post it with thanks.
FT2 (Talk | email) 16:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions from EdChem[edit]

1. In this comment, Arbitrator Roger Davies was responding to criticisms of the findings of fact in the recent Climate Change case. He wrote that: "Their purpose is not to build a watertight case against someone, nor to convince the sanctioned editor of the errors of his/her ways, but to give other arbitrators a flavour of the problem." Do you agree with this comment? To what extent should Findings of Fact be persuasive of editors watching a case, the editors directly involved, and the non-drafting Arbitrators? Is it sufficient for non-drafting Arbitrators to base their views primarily on the drafted Findings? Please note, the intended focus of this question is not the specific Findings about which Roger was being criticised but rather the general issue of your view of the purpose of Findings of Fact.

2. There have been situations during cases where groups of editors have been calling for, or even pleading for, clarification of arbitrators' views. Some examples include:

I could list other examples, but these are sufficient (I believe) to illustrate my questions, which are: how should / do arbitrators go about handling the need to reveal information that is in the community's interests to know as opposed to information that is instead only of interest to the community. How would you respond to the idea of a mechanism by which questions could be posed to the committee where arbitrators would be obligated to provide a direct and timely response?

3. In the fallout from the Randy outing accusations and the subsequent AUSC report, Giano was blocked by Coren and quickly unblocked by John Vandenberg. In the RfAr that followed, JV wrote "As other members of the Committee know, there have been prior incidents of Coren taking action without strong Committee backing. It is my opinion that this most recent block of Giano was another such example of poor judgment on Coren's part." and also that "Coren wisely does not want to name me as part of this "spat", and would like us all to disregard the context. That is not going to happen folks." This clearly adds to the perception that ArbCom closes ranks to protect its own. Have there been situations (to do with the Randy incident or otherwise) where you felt that the community had a right or need to know something, but that has not been disclosed for reasons of protecting an individual arbitrator or ArbCom as an institution? How important is protecting the reputation of ArbCom itself?

Good questions.

  1. Links in findings - I agree with the statement. Links in case rulings are to substantiate the matter or give a flavor of the matters behind the ruling. Arbitrators are the users we elect to review the case and form a view of the evidence; the findings of fact are where they do so. Others (especially tendentious parties) may completely disagree whether the diffs "prove" anything and a full "proof" may be lengthy and contain subjective elements where we want arbs to form a view. So the diffs show a sense of the behavior leading to the decision, rather than attempting to prove it. It is useful and allows community review, understanding, and questions. One would expect the diffs to visibly support the claim made. Weak diffs may suggest a flawed finding. As Roger says, the diffs don't need to be watertight for that purpose. A limited number of diffs can easily be queried, discussed, and elaborated, if anyone is concerned that they don't show the point claimed.

    Non-drafting arbs - I think drafting has to be understood in a narrow sense, referring to specific arbs agreeing to formulate a proposed case handling and write the formal case findings and decisions; it does not mean the others don't discuss, check evidence, or provide views on the matter. Non drafting arbs should have performed their own review of the case, they don't just rubber stamp the findings. For example a major factor could have been overlooked or a point mis-read. However draft findings do suggest where other arbs see the main problems, so it can be worth focusing on those initially (and related evidence and any defense) to see if they are supported.

  2. How should/do arbs disclose matters of community interest - When I was on Arbcom I just went ahead and gave the community the information needed to understand the case. (Examples: Mantanmoreland/Bassetcat, Archtransit, Poetlister unblock, Undertow, Hemanshu, Poetlister/Cato de-checkuser, Law.) Even when not everything can be said, enough usually can to resolve the issue (Law#1 Law#2).

    However at times that's not entirely possible - Example: (a) The Mantanmoreland RFAR was seen by many as strangely weak, partly as it did not firmly confirm or deny the views on the sock evidence. The sense of the Committee was that this would be extremely harmful. The reason was that both parties (and some at WR) appeared to be anticipating using any Wikipedia case findings as real-world ammunition, to show a finding of deception by a real-world individual. Wikipedia isn't a football for others' real-world litigation and PR campaigns. It could only have done harm to confirm or deny the matter, or acknowledge its significance, even indirectly by explaining why it was not ruled on. Also there was a possible "spoofing" concern raised due to impersonation efforts in the past. Arbitration is not a "wall of shame", it aims to provide a way to resolve a Wikipedia dispute. Often the most powerful (if subtle and underestimated) effect of a case is to spotlight and untangle the dispute area and draw definitive bright lines, then see if people repeat. The issue was clear and Mantanmoreland was given firm lines to follow, and these didn't require confirmation of anything else to accomplish. When Mantanmoreland did repeat (as Bassettcat) then the case showed its teeth and he was community banned without dispute very quickly.

    (In OrangeMarlin it was possible and I was unhappy that none was given. In Matthew Hoffman a committee statement rather than various partial comments over the months would have been the way to go. In Climate Change a committee clarification would have helped, but as a non-arb it's hard to be sure whether there were other non-public factors against this.)

    Mechanism to ask questions - What's important is a mechanism to ask arbcom as a whole to produce a formal explanation of a matter in some cases. That's essential and I think a good one to propose and create in 2011. Needs safeguards to prevent tendentiousness - maybe 10 users?

    A mechanism to ask individual arbs isn't really needed; they can be asked on their talk pages or by email on matters relating to their Wikipedia actions and posts (within the confines of WMF/community policy and reasonableness, although sometimes they are unable to respond because of case recusal, bad blood/drama issues, privacy, etc). But any individual arb question can be followed up with the committee as a whole so that's not a problem.

Discussion of question from Shooterwalker[edit]

For the public's sake, can I ask for a link to a draft on a user page? If it's quite rough... I don't mind if you try to sum up the concept in a few sentences (a "nutshell") without the detailed mechanics. I also respect your right to keep it under wraps until you've had more time to work on it. So any information you can publish here would be appreciated. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. Though hopefully brief will be okay. It really needs a full explanation or none, but I'll have a go. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking forward to it. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try this. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've been very generous with your time and explanations. Thanks a lot and good luck with the election. And contact me if you should ever begin a discussion on how to refine or implement your proposal (as an editor and not as an Arb). Shooterwalker (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of question from John Vandenberg[edit]

You have forgotten your lies, despite me confronting you about this on the arbcom mailing list just prior to your resignation, and then again privately, where you gave me an answer? John Vandenberg (chat) 05:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Email me anything I disclosed about myself that you have a query on, rather than making claims that can't be responded to without them. If you want to forward email copies please do. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have forwarded MessageID deea21830901070135r601f4439wa7dbed2553bfee93@mail.gmail.com to FT2. Anyone on ArbCom at that time can see the email. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I got your email. If I stated on the Arbcom wiki that my time zone varies but is mainly (zone in your email) (as your email says), then I confirm the information I gave was correct.

You seem to have made an incorrect assumption and ran with it. I'm lost for words. You could have courteously asked by email but decided to make a point. I'll explain it by email for you, and CC to a random arb for the record. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you be more clear please. Is the timezone information you provide to the other arbitrators correct? John Vandenberg (chat) 07:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the basis of what you've shown me, yes of course. The purpose of the table is not geolocation but coverage and contact details. You know that though and have said it above - it's for co-ordination purposes between arbitrators. I'm not sure why someone would mis-state their hours of availability, especially as I seem to recall the page is optional. As you can see from the edit analysis link, it was clearly accurately stated. For absolute verification I'd need the exact table headers and page text (excluding personal data) at the time of posting. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you only need to refer the discussion we had on Jan 7, 2009; the one I sent to you earlier, and also to Arbcom. There you describe your reasons for having provided the wrong information on Arbcom Wiki, only one of which was the "I live in this timezone, but I think in this other timezone" you are giving here. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have looked over the discussion and can only say that the issue of accuracy of information concerning the timezone FT2 was in was not a big issue at the time. In fact it would be a strain to say it was any sort of issue at the time. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. The committee had asked for FT2 to provide a brief relating to the oversight problem 11 days previously, and we were getting very impatient by Jan 7, especially as two committee members had publicly committed that we would ensure the questions were answered.[1] We were prodding him every few days. On Jan 6 he said we would have it by "tomorrow morning".
The cited email was from myself to the committee, informing him that "tomorrow morning" had passed in his actual timezone, and asking him "is that the timezone you are in right now?" I thought that question was clear enough to avoid ambiguous answers. His response to the arbitrators did not answer my question about his actual timezone; instead he included more times and temporal references, again in a timezone other than his own, one being an indication that he would be sending the brief to the committee much later in the day. He then privately provided the brief to me within 30 minutes, and privately explained that his reason for having given a time to the committee in the wrong timezone was deception. It may not have been a big issue for you, but he thought it was important enough to deceive the committee even after I had made a point of having this ambiguity removed from the deadline.
IIRC, some arbs did not immediately provide details on the ArbCom Wiki page, as they were still considering what they would disclose to each other. Better to say nothing than tell a lie.
And when I raise this now, he accuses me via email of erroneous 'sleuthing'. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC) And in public too. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was surprised to be faced with leading questions asking for comment on a page I could not access from about 3 years ago, with no attempt to provide the data to comment on, and irc "flames" on politely asking for information. This was in the main -admins channel so enough people saw the attempt to clarify (you asked me to comment on something I can't see. I need the data to comment) and your behavior. Since then two users who were on Arbcom at the time have both also commented on this Sam Blacketer Coren (line 169+). FT2 (Talk | email) 18:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was only two years ago, rather than three as you state above. And I am surprised you've forgotten so quickly. I know when I lie, it all comes back to me when something related crops up or when I am confronted, and I get a sinking feeling in my gut. That is a decision point: come clean or add to the pile of lies.
Since you have raised our discussion on IRC, you asked me to email you the "data" because you can't comment without "data", to which I replied "don't lie mate; I will rip you another new one" and told the concerned admins listening in that "[asking on IRC] is an attempt to pretend that he cant answer the question in front of the admins on IRC". Yes, I can be a mongrel when someone is being dishonest. You selected this venue. Intentional or not, you chose to put ArbCom in a position where their hands were tied, so they couldn't interfere with your plans to get back onto ArbCom. If you had provided timely answers to ArbCom in Jan 2009, had informed the committee of your real timezone back then when asked, or had provided a thoughtful answer to my public question yesterday, you would not have such a gut ache now. If you don't like this question, I have others. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(undent) For the record, FT2's entry on the referenced arbcom wiki page reads "Generally ET (UTC-4/-5) but varies", and the column reads only "TZ". I certainly read this as availability rather than geographical location, and that is consistent with the (often irregular) editing times of FT2 in the past. I cannot honestly remember whether it was generally known where FT2 was physically located at the time. Regardless of whatever dispute there might have been about when "tomorrow" was, qualifying that statement about timezones a "lie" is, at best, an unwarranted stretch. — Coren (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Just noting that the above post originally stated something like I cannot honestly remember whether it was generally known that FT2 was physically located in [location] at the time.... Nothing else was changed except removal of the specific location. - FT2 18:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]
It did indeed; I had accidentally disclosed a more specific geographical location that FT2 had disclosed publicly and one of my colleagues noticed and fixed the reference. — Coren (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coren, you seem to be willfully ignoring that he was giving temporal references after he has asked to clarify which timezone he was really in, and you also seem to be ignoring the evidence that I provided to ArbCom yesterday which showed his intent was to deceive. Would you prefer that I post the evidence publicly in order to get an accurate response from ArbCom? Note that I am not threatening to do this; I just want FT2 to answer the goddam question. I suggest that arbs also consider the context in which I created that page (MessageID: deea21830812201847y46742623t6534619a5443d8e4@mail.gmail.com) before coming here and wikilaywering me about whether we were recording our real or pretend timezones. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Note: some further discussion took place here). FT2 (Talk | email) 23:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions from SlimVirgin[edit]

(first question and answer copied from the main page)

Question: Hi FT, apologies if this is already resolved. No one cares if you had an alternative account years ago. But the issue continually arises because you've said you didn't, e.g. here, and because of this diff, which says you wrote Hani Miletski and Kenneth Pinyan from scratch. The problem is that Hani Miletski was started by TBP (talk · contribs). As was Kenneth Pinyan, not counting earlier deleted edits by someone else. Can you clarify? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A: Yes it's resolved, and you're welcome, I can't find the final link but I found these [2][3][4][5]. My own comment is here (as you know there's an interaction ruling with a banned user hence the brevity).

I was contracted by TBP in 2005 with a few inquiries for help. I was a helpful non-admin, I offered my help, copyedited and often redrafted his pages, and helped him with inquiries about sources. This isn't unusual; even now I routinely help others with their article problems when asked or suggest draft email approaches for other OTRS volunteers and functionaries needing a hand. Sometimes I researched, wrote and emailed him what I thought would work, other times we co-edited or corresponded by email. He appeared to be a reasonable if slightly pushy user needing help and a reminder of NPOV, and I was glad to help by collaborating in his edits. (He's solicited several others to help similarly since, evidence available). TBP stopped editing in 2006 when I called him on being a sneaky sock of a blocked warrior. He targeted the contentious topic areas I'd been working in. Worth noting as well since you mention alt accounts - the topic area contained other people editing under alt accounts (for obvious reasons) - User:JAQ was a self disclosed alt of a never-identified user. (On checking now I'm reminded JAQ had a "sockpuppet" disclosure as of December 2004, which may be where TBP got his) and User:TPK was the first user to welcome me to the wiki. I hadn't planned on returning to the area to deal with warriors or sticking around the area afterwards; I never had the notion to segregate my editing in contentious areas. Sadly I like a challenge and I didn't like the idea of people messing around with the wiki. My user page list of articles was simply intended to list some content I'd done as examples of my content work in difficult areas to be looked at during RFA. It included content I'd written to help others and co-authored. When I created a separate "content work" page long after (Nov 2007) that page inherited any articles listed at my userpage. As part of his review, John Vandenberg asked me to recheck every article I had ever listed there at any time; almost all were accurate. (A couple of articles were duplicates or content forks where I hadn't written the original material, a few I reassessed whether it was a rewrite or a major improvement). Of the two you mention one was already correctly listed as "co-authored", and the other I removed to avoid confusion as the history would not have appeared to support the contention.

Thank you for the response. Could you say what you meant when you said you had written those articles from scratch? Looking at Hani Miletski, the current article doesn't differ much from the one started and written by TBP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After more than 4 years, specific details about this article or stub and how it was created or co-edited across email and wiki (and maybe other means, can't remember for sure but we never did voice and I probably wasn't on irc) are completely unmemorable. With the caveat that it's a guess, from the page history I would have copyedited a draft short article or long stub, he would have discussed it or maybe just said nothing and used it, then either added other stuff as I fielded email questions or did extra research after sending the first draft and sent extra emails, and such. That makes most sense. The history suggests he got a draft (or a rewrite of his draft or notes, there could have been prior email dialog) from me, then a bunch of extra copyedit suggestions filtering through one at a time in the space of 30 minutes, suggesting I was still looking up or reviewing stuff, then there's a 50 minute pause, then I added a few others. I think what that means is, after sending him a written or copyedited version he posted it on-wiki (with or without some edits), I then emailed him copyedits or extra information (there wasn't time for much discussion judging by the timing in history). After that he probably went offline or I did. I probably came back, re-read it and found more improvements and posted them myself. On collating examples of content work I'd done for RFA, I listed it as an example of a page effectively written from scratch, suggesting it was more likely my draft or a draft based on notes rather than a copyedit. But I emphasize that's a guess, I'm interpreting a very old page history based on impressions and how it apparently went. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry FT, it seems to me that your explanation stretches credulity. There's a simpler one, of course, and I note John Vandenburg above is basically asserting that you have form on fibbing. I'm sorry in many ways the cookies are crumbling in this way, but I'm afraid, on balance, and for a variety of reasons, I believe that TBP was, in fact, your account. Privatemusings (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In 2009 John had to tell you - several times - that your activities in the issue were out of line.
  • Aug 3 2009 - You were told by John "I view your post there [FT2's talk page] as badgering, and I would appreciate it if you would remove your post, and refrain from getting yourself involved in this dispute."
  • Oct 6 2009 - On asking: "I hope it's cool with you if I head back to FT's page in a little while..." you were told again "No it is not OK, for the same reason as before... As I understand it, this has already been reviewed by a number of people, without anyone concluding it was a sock... You can keep pressing me, or you can find another functionary to bother... but approaching FT2 about it again is harassment".
  • Oct 7 2009 - You asked and were told yet again: "'having run a sock' - no, it has been rejected a good number of times".
  • Oct 7 2009 - You were told yet again "A good portion of the history is private, and I am not sure how much of that history was considered by the arbcom members who voted on that motion. Irrespective of that, the committee instructed both to disengage, onwiki or elsewhere. As you know, PD has not done this, so FT2 has responded to the allegation quite clearly [6], and I am reviewing the private evidence. Don't hold your breath, and don't accuse FT2 of lying unless you have proof that contradicts his explanation".
I accept your right to have your own beliefs and I'm sorry you feel as you do. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

< maybe I should warn John about badgering you above ;-) - it'll all come out in the wash anywhooo.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Offliner[edit]

Do you believe the nationalities of Wikipedia's editors are fairly represented in the current ArbCom? Could you please reveal your own nationality? If you do not wish to reveal your exact nationality, could you at least state whether you are from an anglophone country? Offliner (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There isn't a way to find which Arbitrators or candidates are from which country (although some may voluntarily have userboxes or user pages that gives details). In a way it's good not to have it disclosed. We appoint users to trusted roles based on their track record and merits only. If a candidate stated they came from a "large contributor" country like the United States would this be important or a plus or minus? If they came from a "small contributor" country like Bengal should that be a reason to bias their candidacy? I think this would add bias that's not related to their capability in the role. If I were from a minor country I could even feel insulted to be considered not on my own merits, but marked up or down as a result of my personal origins. (If it were useful to do it for editor nationality, what about editor ethnicity? Religion? Political view? "Please disclose the following so I can vote"? Not a good path.)
I think pseudonymity does us well. Candidates are appointed on the basis of perceived competence and record only, and that's always been how I prefer to be rated. So I would not disclose a specific nationality. Whether from a country with many users or a country with few, it would invite people to give weight to a factor that doesn't relate to competence for the role. (I think it's fairly well known that I'm from an anglophone - English speaking - country if that helps)
I welcome including more editors from a wide range of countries to all Wikipedia roles. It affirms we are a multinational project. It can bring important insights to Arbcom. Editors from other countries may well have different cultural and interaction norms and Arbitrators from the Global North may not be aware of these. But there's a tension here, Arbcom should contain a range of views, but individual Arbitrators should not be selected in a biased manner. As an English language project it will always have a bias to English speaking users. Despite the benefits of wider cultural representation, I'm against biasing the decisions we make that way. Wikipedia does not record users' locations unless voluntarily stated. If our best candidates are from minority countries (as seen by the wider community) then those users will be appointed to the role. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up questions from Carcharoth[edit]

A few follow-up questions, some related to your answers to the existing questions:

Thanks for standing as a candidate in these elections, and thanks for taking the time to answer these questions. Carcharoth (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawal notice[edit]

Another user whose voice I have great respect for and who has been silent in the election, has dropped me an email stating he thought my comment on the Oversighted edits case did not match his memory. He suggested it might be evidenced in private IRC chats between the two of us from memory. I have looked and found the chat he remembers.

To be clear the user (Wjbscribe) has not suggested that any wrongdoing took place at the time nor asked for any disclosure of the point in public or private, but I wish to disclose it anyway. I am ashamed to have forgotten the December 2007 timeline that much and were it not for finding it in my own old logs and my own trust in the user's integrity I would remain skeptical. The logs I did know of or was asked to look at, I checked and found nothing. This one contained the clearest case that I had known of the edits back when they took place. It seems that the 370 KB or so of Q&A at Arbcom election 2007 pushed the initial events of that case out of mind (the chat with this user took place on 7 December 2007). In brief, I not only knew of the oversighted edits but the user had advised me on their oversighting and I had known at the time it took place that it was being done.

The conversation was short (a few lines only) and I can believe I pushed the whole issue away over the next days and months, but to overlook it completely when it became an issue would be unacceptable. I have made no secret of avoiding that case completely and not thinking of the user to avoid any provocation. But this is too much of a concern, and regardless of the reason would at the least mean any election was on an inaccurate basis. I see no course except to withdraw from this election and apologize to all. Although there is no demand to do so I will amend my description (leaving the original visible) to ensure the missing part is fully disclosed, and my apologies for this not being the case earlier or indeed in July 2008.

I would like to thank Wjbscribe for this. Although painful to find out, he has acted to a high standard in how he has handled his concern. For my part my intention was to disclose and I would not have liked to find this out after the fact. I have linked to this on other relevant pages. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How you can write so much, yet say so little, still amazes me. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is still more lies. If (despite the discussions with Scribe on the 7th, the discussion with Gerard on the 8th, and Jimbo's email to you on the 11th December) the events of the 2007 election had caused you to forget these conversations, how is it that you were still boasting about the oversights on Admin IRC on December 22 (I have the log)? You are a liar and a fraud and you should be permanently banned from Wikipedia. 109.154.123.158 (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Mr Anon, for actually providing a checkable date and venue. On 22 December 2007 in -en-admins, a user commented on WR's dramas and I commented back, "honest, its not important. The page was deleted by the arb overseers (election co-ordinators), or something", and "(however) its not very important, so Im kind of going to let him to his thing, and in a few months he'll tire of it", and "It's not important anyhow. He'll tire of it" as part of putting it to rest. In other words
  1. brief explanation at the time already heading down the 'not important and drop it' route,
  2. far from 'boasting' it was a brief 'close the books' explanation to users who might want to understand the reason for WR drama to ensure I could stop discussing it completely,
  3. two weeks after the event it was already described as 'deleted or something', and mostly in the past,
  4. the log wouldn't have been found by a later search for "oversight" or "oversighted edits".
This was an unpleasant drama case, and the best thing is to let them go completely. Partly due to the election and partly due to the unpleasantness of a harasser whom I had privately determined I would under no circumstances respond to if avoidable or be provoked by, I let the case fall out of mind. In retrospect I would not have done so by choice and would ask for the gift of perfect memory, but it happened. It's unlikely to happen in future and I've learned the lesson. But that was my first case of severe online harassment 3 years ago. The decision to ignore completely and not worry about it was correct, but apparently I took ignoring it further than I realized, and put it completely out of mind. The election pressures are likely part of that - compare 2007's with most of 2010. How one handles personal errors is important. I disclose completely once I can. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More