Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Georgewilliamherbert/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: Generally, all of these. Being active in the community and administrative functions helps. I have been active in internet communications and communities since 1987. Part of my defined job role and title now is interfacing internal and external employees at my consulting company.

   Specifically;

   (a), (b), and (c) I already participate as a commentator in cases in some instances. The arbitrators' role is distinct, but familiar from watching it.

   (d) I've participated (mostly in the past) in some of this type of review on unblock-en-l; Arbcom BASC is another level but similar function.

   (e) I'm not familiar with the private part of the selection process, but the general process in public is clear. CUs need community trust.

   (f) I've never had Checkuser on WP, but I am familiar with internet forensics in general (not a certified security professional, but been working informally on it as a network and system administrator for over 23 years, from the behavioral level down to deconstructing TCP/IP packets and route announcements). I do sockpuppetry reviews on and off without CU.

   (g) I understand the policy here; I haven't done much work in this area to date, though.

   (h) I'm not familiar with the detailed responses typically made by Arbcom, but I've done something similar at OTRS (not at all actively this last year, but before that more actively for a while). We need to be professional and respectful in answering queries.

   (i) Most of those running already do this and did it long before they were on Arbcom, in some form or another. If elected, that flips around and statements may be interpreted more officially, etc. It's not quite the same casual-ish conversation, but you need to understand the more casual communications and be comfortable with.

   (j) I don't know what the arbcom-l list is like, but I'm familiar with massive mailing lists and management issues and other Wikipedia and WMF lists. Managing large mail queues is a major life skill; I've had thousands of emails a day in my mailbox for almost 20 years now.

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: I have already been exposed to this by using my real name on my account from the beginning, with 23 years of Internet records associated with me. Specifically to Wikipedia, my OTRS activities and administrator activities have already exposed me to outside real-life harassment, including late night phone calls and threats. Regrettable and not something I look forwards to certainly.

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: Generally support; privacy and copyright concerns are significant. Where such correspondence is directly relevant to on-wiki behavior it may be relevant for private consideration by arbcom (or OTRS or admins or unblock-en-l or...) - but there's a difference between a limited private sharing with groups of trusted identified people and posting for all the world to see.

   • (b) "Responsibility"

     A: Very important. Though private correspondence is an exception, as a rule decisionmaking on Wikipedia needs to be transparent and open to review and (reasonable) challenge. We are all accountable for what we do.

   • (c) "Perceived legal threats"

     A: Important because legal threats are often seen as a form of intimidation by the threatened party. In cases where actual libel or defamation or harassment happens, it needs to get addressed - but the on-Wiki response needs to not chill reasonable open discussion of the issues present. Most of the time the threats are issued no substantiative legal issue is really there, and it's being used purely to intimidate, and that's completely against our core value of everyone editing together.

   • (d) "Outing"

     A: Philosophically, I think that Wikipedia would be stronger in many ways if people used their real names more openly, but that's not what the community wants and policy says. As it typically comes to admins or Arbcom, outing is another form of attempting to harrass or embarrass another user and discourage them from editing. Rarely, a legitimate conflict of interest or ongoing serious abuse case justifies an exception, but in the absence of those I feel that it's insulting to the idea of community to try and drive members away.

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: It's all a tradeoff; we're trading "all" versus "together". If someone really isn't here to make the encyclopedia better, is harrassing other users, and doesn't share our core values then there's not much point in keeping them around. But those are easy calls, admins indef'ing people. Arbcom seems to get the hard cases, where it's not that clear. Where policy and precedent don't already make a right and wrong clear. I generally would prefer to make expectations clear going forwards, with lesser sanctions initially and admins authorized to enforce if expectations are violated. But some cases show some users are beyond immediate redemption. I think being reluctant to be strict is good, but being unwilling to be strict is a mistake.

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: Philosophically I agree with the statement; practically, there are gaps, and Arbcom has asked the community to fill gaps in and not always had success. We can patch on a case by case basis, but precedent then becomes a form of policy. Arbcom may need to apply itself more to try and push the community to resolve policy questions, but that has been tried before.

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: As a rule - I think long term content disputes are a behavioral failure not a content problem. Community consensus is supposed to find a neutral point or find a balanced way to present opposing viewpoints. We've seen that work remarkably effectively in some very stressful real-world conflict areas. But it clearly doesn't always work. I believe that prying some people back away from involvement is often necessary to allow the remaining participants an environment in which neutral or balanced consensus can evolve. I don't know that Arbcom can establish a content dispute resolution process; we have a lot of various RFC and consensus processes already, nothing jumps out to me as an obvious improvement. It might help for Arbcom to issue either case-based or regular "Requests for Attention" - asking for other uninvolved editors and administrators to review and get involved in problem areas, but that's a social solution not programmatic.

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: This is a tough one; how does one define "success"? An Arbcom case is pretty much by definition a serious enough problem that the community and/or individuals in it are going to lose something either way. (Will come back later with some more specifics).

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:

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:

   A:#:A: In the "Responsibility" count you wrote that decision making should be transparent with exclusion of private correspondence. However, many times you didn't reason very significant actions of yours to the minimum extent though you were asked several times to do so by several editors and on several venues. Can you elaborate more about your view of transparency?--Gilisa (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

---