User:MBisanz/ACE2008/Guide/Jayvdb

Hello, below are some optional questions to help the voters at the 2008 Arbitration Committee elections get to know you, the candidate, better.

• 1.How long have you been an editor of Wikipedia?

• A.I registered on Wikipedia in September 2004, however I only made two edits prior to March 2006 when I became serious about it.

• 2. How many total edits do you have on Wikipedia? What is your % of edits to the article space?

• A. 318456 edits on English Wikipedia, with 12336 in article space, which is roughly 40% [1]
  291 edits on other language Wikipedia, with 160 edits in article space, which is roughly 55%.

• 3. Are you an administrator? If so, how long have you been one?

• A. Yes, 14 months.

• 4. Do you hold any other userrights or positions at the English Wikipedia? (crat, medcom, WPPJ, etc)

• A. Oversight (October 2008)

• 5. Do you hold any userrights or other positions of trust at other WMF projects? Which ones?

• A. Adminship on English Wikipedia (September 2007), English Wikisource (November 2007), Multilingual Wikisource (November 2007) Wikimedia Commons (February 2008), Latin Wikisource (July 2008), and Incubator in a "vandalism-only" capacity. (October 2008).
  Checkuser on English Wikisource (March 2008)

• 6. Have you ever been named as a participant of a Request for Arbitration? If so, please link case(s).

• A. No.

• 7. Have you ever been blocked or subject to restrictions such as WP:RESTRICT, WP:BLPLOG, WP:AER, or WP:SANCTION? If so, please link to the relevant issue.

• A. Yes. I was blocked by Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), however he quickly undid the block, and an hour later added a notice to the block log:
  "Note that my previous block was unjustified, and should be disregarded"
  This is discussed UT:Jayvdb and UT:Arthur Rubin, and the pretext for the block was that I unblocked Betacommand without the approval of the blocking admin. My rationale for the unblock is here.

• 8. Have you ever been blocked or formally sanctioned at another WMF project? If so, please describe.

• A. No.

• 9. What is your best work at Wikipedia? (an article, list, image or content template)

• A. All my children are beautiful. None of them are spectacular; Kitty Barne and Ayandeh are typical of my work; but sometimes they end up like Charles Cooper Nott, Sr. and Scrutiny (journal) - the glory goes to others.

• 10. If elected, would you request the Checkuser and/or Oversight userrights?

• A. Yes. Checkuser is a technical role, which requires an understanding of telecommunications, and requires someone with a quick recall memory of the infrastructure on the ground in the extremities of the Internet. I have those "competencies".
  I will hand in my oversight rights as soon as others are adequately bearing that load.

• 11. Please list any disclosed or undisclosed alternate or prior accounts you have had.

• A. None. I do operate "JVbot", which performs patrolling but does not edit.

• 12. What methods of off-wiki communication do you use to discuss Wikipedia related matters? (IRC, Skype, WR, Mailing Lists, blogs, etc) Please link to any publicly available forums you use.

• A.
  • IRC — only channels with a WMF contact.
    Primarily #wikisource, #wikipedia-en-admins and #wikimedia-au.
  • Mailing lists — I am not on any mailing list that discusses Wikipedia except the lists run by Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Australia
    Subscribed to checkuser-l, oversight-l, otrs-en-l, permissions-l and wikien-l; foundation-l, wikisource-l, mediawiki-l, wikimediaau-l, chapters, wikitech-l.
  • Email, Google Talk — occasionally.

• 13. Do you have OTRS access? If so, which queues?

• A. Yes. Permissions, info-en, Quality, Wikimedia Australia

• 14. How do you resolve the apparent inconsistency between RFAR/MONGO and RFAR/Jim62sch as to off-site activities by users?

• A. There is no inconsistency. "MONGO#Karma" says that participation in hypercritical websites may result in closer scrutiny onwiki, can expect to be to come under scrutiny for offwiki activity, and 18 months later "Jim62sch#Conduct outside Wikipedia" expands on this to indicate that in egregarious cases, offwiki activity may be used as rationale for sactions onto Wikipedia.

• 15. What is your opinion on the new closed motions process?

• A. It is good, but needs more controls to prevent it being a mechanism for regular private hearings.

• 16. Besides compromised accounts, under what circumstances would you support or initiate an emergency request for desysopping?

• A. When the emergency is credible.

• 17. Currently, only Jimbo Wales and the Arbitration Committee are authorized to perform/request involuntarily desysop an administrator whose account has not been compromised. What is your view of community-based desysopping decisions?

• A. I believe we should have a "vote of confidence" that is in place for all positions of responsibility, which would standardise the messy and widely varied recall system we have at the moment.
  At this time, I understand that it is not a fashionable position to hold, so it is not a short or medium term objective of mine, and I will not be trying to "devolve" that to the community if they dont want it.

• 18. If you owned Wikipedia as the WMF currently does, what would you do to fix the BLP problem?

• A. Work on a foundation level resolution pertaining to living people as a baseline, as was done for fair use.

• 19. In 2004, the Arbitration Committee referred issues to the Mediation Committee. However, as of recent, the Arbitration Committee has not referred issues to the Mediation Committee. Would you refer more content-based disputes to MedCom or continue the current practice?

• A. The committee has not explicitly referred issue to the Mediation Committee, but content disputes do usually end up rejected and the wikicitizens who watch the requests page quickly pitch in and help steer the content issue down the right path. Formally recommending that a content issue is sent to the Mediation Committee undermines the principle of voluntary involvement in mediation.

• 20. In the past the Arbitration Committee has taken a checkered view of wheel wars, desysopping in some cases and not desysopping in others. What do you believe constitutes a wheel war which would result in a desysopping?

• A. This question has stumped me for a while now, so I will answer the opposite question.
  A sysop should be desysoped if
  1. an OTRS ticket is involved, and required the wheel warring sysop to press on.
  2. they were clearly acting on well founded legal (i.e. not just some policy) or foundation (i.e. not just "I heard ...") advice.
  3. they are inexperienced, and they do the action which makes it cross over into a wheel war; this would be better handled with a pardon and a mild remedy to ensure they dont partake in the frivolities next time the opportunity arises
  4. they undo an action described in point three (3), if their edit summary indicates that is their motive and they had not already used their tool in that situation.
  There are probably more. There are lots of factors which would play a part in this.

• 21. How involved must an administrator be to be unable to enforce policy on a user? Given that it is expected that all admins understand policy when they pass RFA, under what circumstances would you not desysop an administrator who was clearly involved with a user they blocked or an article they deleted/protected?

• A. This is even more difficult than the last question, as the abuse of power is less clear in many simple admin actions. The simple cases are easy: the admin shouldnt have prolonged or inordinate exposure to the user, especially over content, or in some dispute resolution process. The cases that end up at Arbcom are never so simple.
  Sometimes it feels like everyone tosses a coin to work out whether an admin is "involved". There are a lot of factors to take into account, and in some circumstances it could even be desirable that involved administrator does the deed - to get the message through. In the end, it is problems like this that require the committee to be made up of Wikipedians from different backgrounds, and a voting process, so that it doesnt come down to a single coin toss.

• 22. Besides the technical capabilities administrators have, the Arbitration Committee has granted administrators the rights to enforce certain general sanctions with regards to specific editors and articles. What is your view on these new non-technical privileges being considered part of the "administrative" function for purposes such as RfC, Recall, and RfAR?

• A. In my other answers you can read my opinion of recall, which is simply that it is silly as currently implemented, because it is not standardised, and most criteria are intentionally too high, or if too low, they present a problem. All admins should be under the same criteria in order that the editing environment becomes reasonably predictable. That said, I think that Recall is not effective if user conduct is considered part of "administrative" tasks.
  In regards to RfC and RfAR, where there is more scope for discussion and "communal decisions", all user conduct should be considered, and how the person hands our editing restrictions is often a user conduct issue that is an important aspect.
  The reasoning behind this is.. that enforcing the Arbitration Committee sanctions is a task that admins implement, but if there are concerns about how they are implementing them, those matters need to be referred to the committee for clarification. Recall is about administrative duties which are the sole responsibility of the admin - admins are given the job by the community, and are expected to do the job well; if they dont, the community is well within their rights to take action themselves. On the other hand the editing sanctions are given to the admins by Arbcom as an extra set of "methods" that if abused should be addressed by Arbcom.

• 23. Current checkuser policy at the English Wikipedia prohibits checkusers from fulfilling "fishing" requests. However, global privacy policy does not prohibit such requests from being fulfilled, so long as personal information is not disclosed. Would you support the alteration of the en.wp policy to permit fishing requests?

• A. Yes. Define fishing! Rather than try to define it, or prevent it, or hide it, it should be be clearly written into policy that there are certain classes of checkuser usage which are "routine", and then all other usage should be discussed privately, either on a private WMF mailing list where all English Wikipedia checkusers are subscribed, or a minimum of three checkusers are fully in the loop, with at least one arbitrator involved and able to veto the use of the tool, and to be held accountable for having approved the usage. I think some disclosure mechanism should also be built into the process - on English Wikisource the community requires that all checks must be disclosed after the check has been done, however I don't think that would not work here. I cant quickly think of a workable equivalent.

• 24. In 2006 the Arbitration Committee asked the community to address the issue of protecting children's privacy on Wikipedia. To this day there is still no policy on how to handle children's privacy on Wikipedia. What steps would you take to ensure children's privacy is protected under policy?

• A. None. The Wikimedia Foundation should write a resolution, or the community should write a policy. I have committed myself to not modify policy while on the Arbitration committee. I will continue to use oversight to address issues that crop up related to children's privacy; I strongly urge the Foundation to be more clear that children's privacy should be more strongly protected by Oversight. Already there has been a few times that I have felt constrained by the current policy, and the natural instinct to "do the right thing" has meant I have broken the technicalities of the policy.

• 25. How do you resolve the apparent inconsistency between RFAR/LevelCheck and RFAR/Durova as to what may be considered justification for blocks of educated new users?

• A. Educated new users should be welcomed. Even if they are a sock, if they dont disrupt the project or reignite old battles then they are good for the project. The Evidence regarding LevelCheck (talk · contribs) shows the user was intentionally disruptive[2], and was blocked after the evidence was considered. On the other hand the block of !! (talk · contribs) was done without an open analysis of the evidence, which if done would have sent up red flags. No evidence of disruption by !! was provided in the Evidence, and the user was "encouraged" to see past this bad experience.

• 26. Originally RfARs were named in the style of Party X v. Party Y in line with the idea of two groups in opposition to each other (eg. User:Guanaco versus User:Lir). Later it was changed to naming an individual user (eg. Husnock). Now cases get random names like Highways 2. What naming convention do you believe is the appropriate one for ArbCom to use in designating case names? under what circumstances should a case name be changed after opening, such as in RFAR/Zeraeph?

• A. I dont see any value in naming cases, and I see lots of negatives. Naming them in a yearly series (e.g. "/2008/1") would suit me just fine, as I work with records management systems all the time. It would solve the naming problem which can be quite daunting for the clerks if arbs are not around or responsive, and negate the need for renaming. Every time I suggest this people jump up and down real worried like, but I've yet to figure out why. If people want topical names, or want to tie the case to user names, the clerks can create redirects and disambiguation pages as seems appropriate. RFAR can be quite stressful for parties, and that is not helped if they have a page of "evidence" named after their username or worse .. their full name, as so often happens .. and many usernames could have significant ties to the person real world identity which are not known by the arbs or clerks. Here are three examples (more here:

Alastair Haines arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) - real name; mediation failed - three parties were all put under editing restrictions, and I believe another parties needs to be restricted as well. Gender of God could have been used as a neutral name, but the naming was warped by the unbelievable concern that he was the sole cause of the problem, due to the fact some admins had thought he might be looking at legal avenues.

Ehud Lesar arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) - real name not known, and there was credible concern it might be the persons name.

Stefanomencarelli arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) - the user brings a problem to arbcom to find a better solution in regards to his own editing, which was being constrained because other users are rolling back his additions due to poor English and sourcing; he now has a page named after him to thank for trying dispute resolution.

Food for thought: "CharlotteWebb" was not renamed to "Jayjg 2"

• 27. A case is presented between two administrators who have repeatedly undone each other's administrative actions with regard to the deletion of an article. The basis for the deleting administrator's action was an OTRS ticket showing the article to be a copyright violation. In performing the deletion, the administrator clearly referenced the OTRS ticket number. Assuming the undeleting administrator did not have OTRS access, do you penalize him more or less for wheel warring? Do you penalize the deleting administrator for wheel warring?

• A. Undeletion where an OTRS ticket has been cited is absolutely unacceptable, however it is possible the admin isnt familiar with the system, or thought they had better information than the ticket. It is expected that admins think first, exploring all available options (e.g. a query at Administrator noticeboard), before they act.
  The admin who undeletes should be exhorted to be more meticulous the first time, and desysoped if they dont dispute that they were aware of the meaning of "OTRS".
  If the deleting admin did not use clear and measured communication, indicating the nature of the situation, the admin may need to be reminded that these situations are avoidable.

• 28. To what extent do you believe policy on Wikipedia is or should be binding?

• A. Policies that implement Wikimedia Foundation resolutions should be binding, and usually are strongly enforced. However policies on Wikipedia are a best-effort attempt at recording what is expected of the community, but at any time the wording within the policy is not explicitly endorsed by the community.
  Users should take care to follow policy closely, and if it doesnt make sense in a situation, or if they find it conflicts with what others are suggesting, they should seek clarification before boldly disregarding it. Only if someone is absolutely sure it does not apply should they ignore the rules, in which case they accept the consequences if it is shown that their edits where not in line with community expectations.

• 29. Do you believe that former arbitrators should be on the Arb Comm mailing list? Why or why not?

• A: My instinct tells me the answer to this is "No".
  The ex-arbs can submit RFAR statements, evidence, and do workshopping just like everyone else does. They can also inform the committee privately of any specific historical arbcom-l private discussions that the committee should review.
  The committee should make good use of the historical discussions that have occurred on the Arbcom mailing list, and seek clarification from ex-arbs when needed, however the committee needs to focus on the future rather than the past.
  Update: Apparently, there is an arb only mailing list, and it isnt hosted by WMF.[3] How curious. Stay tuned; I'll let you know what I find.. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)