Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/Mailer diablo/Questions

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}

Questions from Usernamekiran

  2. Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"? —usernamekiran(talk) 18:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The very original goal of arbitration is to resolve disputes that other forms of dispute resolution can't solve (e.g. RfC, mediation). It just so happens that ArbCom was the one armed with "teeth". There is no obligation to impose a sanction if it is not necessary to resolve the situation/dispute. - Mailer Diablo 18:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If a fairly new editor asks you what is the difference between ANI, and arbcom; then how would you explain it? —usernamekiran(talk) 18:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you need something that needs an administrator's attention and there is really nowhere else you can ask for help or ask something about (noticeboards, Wikiprojects, Village Pumps), AN/I is the avenue. If only after you have exhausted all options of trying to resolve your dispute and you are unable to do so (because you are blocked and all your appeals were refused, have evidence to present in confidence, etc.), then you look for the Arbitration Committee (but sometimes, the functionaries may suffice). - Mailer Diablo 18:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda Arendt

  2. Thank you for standing, again! Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Opabinia regalis's reasoning raises two issues that I would address separately:
    On templating: I agree that has to change, but for a different reason. I can understand why templates exist, but they have been way overused. If they are used they sometimes should be customized to fit the situation, in a way that improves communication and understanding by the other party. I think the key is here is to exercise discretion. See Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars#The problem with templated messages. If you really have to use talkpage templates on an editor who's here long enough, you are probably looking more at something like WP:TROUT.
    On civility: But that does not mean we should tolerate chronic incivility. One does not need to be a potty mouth to get one's point across directly. Though I can tolerate swearing/offensive language if it's not directed at anyone, no one wants to be the subject of swearing. One wouldn't do that in a workplace, why would one do it here? Just because Wikipedia is not a face-to-face environment? I might accept that someone may have a bad day, but if it gets often enough then it becomes chronic and affects other editors. Chronic incivility tends to create a toxic environment unconducive for collaboration between editors. I still hold the opinion (as I previously did) that "high-performing assholes are not welcome on Wikipedia". - Mailer Diablo 00:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect

  2. Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"? (same as my usual question - but already asked by another above, no need to cut-and-paste :) )
    Answered above. :) - Mailer Diablo 00:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If an administrator has openly stated a strong aversion to an editor's article edits on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?
    That's certainly possible, but I'll need to know more facts to give you a definite answer. - Mailer Diablo 00:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, ought there be a delay to give that editor sufficient time to address "new evidence"?
    b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, ought space and time for rebuttal be given?
    c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
    d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?
    a-c) I'm generally happy to allow more time and some flexibility for an editor to address evidence presented against him/her in the interests of natural justice. But keeping in mind if such privilege is provided, it should not be an automatic right (i.e. case-by-case basis), lest it become a new avenue for parties to drag out cases for an extended period.
    d) For new evidence to be put out by any arbitrator as late as the PD stage, that would usually be conduct that occurs within the case, such as really bad behaviour over at the evidence page/after the evidence phase. For everything else, it should have gone into the evidence page like any other party submitting evidence. - Mailer Diablo 00:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carrite

  2. I count exactly seven months of very active editing by you this decade. Isn't it a bit presumptuous for you to dive into this election 24 hours before nominations close, proclaiming yourself an "establishment" candidate while touting a draconian "No Asshole Rule," using ancient administrator, checkuser, etc. credentials as a rationale why people should vote for you? What have you done for Wikipedia since 2007? Where have you been these last ten years? Carrite (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still contributing to the encyclopedia, and performing my responsibilities. I know I was not as active as I have wished to be. I am hoping that more active and better qualified candidates will step up so that I do not have to. - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from DGG

  2. Officially, Arbcom is supposed to deal primarily with conduct disputes, not content, and to interpret and apply policy, not make it. But it has always seemed to me that most conduct disputes have their origin in disagreements over content, and that Arb Com has in fact been most successful when actually dealing with content concerns, as in the pseudoscience and nationalism related cases, even though it may have to word it indirectly. And it has also always seemed to me that the necessary interpretation of policy can in effect amount to making policy, as with the cases involving BLP. What do you think? DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose you are referring to the discretionary sanctions as the solution for content disputes that end up in ArbCom. DS is a rather unique creature in the sense that it was a mechanism invented and 'armed' with the powers of ArbCom, but it is ultimately delegated back to the (administrator) community to handle it. In a way, you can say that it is something like giving directions on how to enforce an existing policy. I still think the best policy outcomes are from the community, and ArbCom is there to help determine the wishes of the community by interpreting it based on the current policy. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There have been very few actual arb com cases in the last few years, which might indicate that the community is doing better with its problems, and that the basic rules are becoming well understood. It seems to me that most of the business at arb com has been dealing with ban appeals, which is done on the mailing list, and often involves considerations of privacy. I'm not sure we do very well at this. What do you think about this? DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    This is the reason I jumped in the race. Reviewing ban appeals is a task that tends to wear other arbitrators out and at times give them pain and grief. I used to process quite a chunk of ban appeal matters while I was on ArbCom/BASC. Given that the number of new cases have reduced, I am in favour of dedicating more resources to dealing with ban appeals, with the possibility of having a dedicated team for this task. The team size for a specific task should commensurate with the workload.
    I previously wrote about possible reform of BASC to deal with ban appeals better in 2014 as follows: "I think BASC should be given an option to seek the community's input on a particular ban appeal. This can be done in two ways - either the appellant indicates that he is willing to give BASC this option (in which his appeal will be viewed more favorably) or that BASC has an automatic right, if exercised, to make calls for input from the community with regards to a ban appeal. The latter has a powerful deterrent effect of repeat/serial appellants because over time it will become very apparent who are the repeat/serial appellants and would think very carefully before submitting an appeal. Also when input from the community is sought, there is the question of whether the comments should be on-wiki or emailed to the mailing list to be viewed by BASC only." I think ArbCom has since adopted part of this proposal in terms of allowing ban appeals to surface on-wiki, with the participation of the banned user, so that the community can have their input and do some of the weight-lifting (Betacommand is the example the comes to mind). - Mailer Diablo 18:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. When I joined arb com 3 years ago, most arbs thought that the terms of use were not necessarily enforceable policy at the English Wikipedia, and that arb com has no role in its enforcement. I strongly disagreed at the time--I think they are inherently policy to the extent they are applicable, and arb com has the same jurisdiction as for other behavioral policy. (Of course, we may want or need to interpret it further--and certainly can extend it.) To some degree, I think it possible that the prevailing opinion may have been changing a little towards the position I hold. Where do you stand? DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    The terms of use, when it was created, is largely based on our existing policies. In practice, the terms of use is enforceable to the extent that it is interpreted with or reflective of existing English Wikipedia's policy. Already, we can see that the community has developed an interpretation of policy on undisclosed paid editing based on the paid editing clause in the terms of use. While I think ArbCom reserves the right to interpret the terms of use on English Wikipedia, the provided example leads me to think the community is capable of developing their own interpretation and we should let them have first bite at doing so. - Mailer Diablo 18:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. As I see it, most arbs are of the opinion that the requirement that editors avoid outing applied equally to good faith and bad faith editors. I however think that it ought to be interpreted to apply with much less rigor to those who appear to be editing in bad faith or deliberately against the terms of use. (I recognize the difficulty in deciding initially who is editing in bad faith) Where do you stand? DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    Yikes! This is a pretty dangerous thought. It is not just about having trouble deciding who is editing in bad faith, but being less rigorous to those we do not welcome here can result in a massive loss of the Committee's moral standing and is likely to bring more problems than it is worth. Bad faith editors who feel wounded at the other end will stick around longer to "remedy" what they perceive as being "wronged" through outing here, and give the Committee and community endless troubles as they take matters into their own hands. I remember the old days where bad faith editors created a dedicated outing directory of all major functionaries and administrators who dared cross their paths because of such perception of being "wronged" (thankfully, that is gone since and WMF/policy is much more vigorous on dealing with harassment), and more unspeakable behavior that I will not elaborate here. Lose-lose situation. The best thing we can do is to offer "bad" faith editors patience when they do not. - Mailer Diablo 17:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Nick

  2. What do you believe are the biggest errors of judgement that the Arbitration Committee have displayed previously as a collective body. In your answer, please give examples from both your time on the committee, and from the times before being elected (or after your most recent term). Discuss how you would have approached these issues with the benefit of hindsight, how things might have been done differently and if re-elected, how you would try to limit these errors.
    Organization as a team, and that has certainly led to errors. ArbCom can be a rather slow moving body, and the ability to organize matters by priority can be pretty difficult in my time due to the sheer number of emails and pinging that's going on-wiki as well. Sometimes emails can go unanswered for weeks and it takes a bit of prodding by myself to bring it back to attention (or for the originator to remind us again). There are very few instances where a lack of input from arbitrators was mistaken as a consensus on a decision, and when that decision led to an outrage (such as putting out a motion didn't turn out well) the arbitrator who was the messenger ended up holding the can for the committee. I think things have improved since after I left (so much so there was a consolidation of roles), but there is definitely still room for improvement. I am still inclined towards the idea that ban appeals would be more efficiently organized if they were delegated to a dedicated (likely elected) team. - Mailer Diablo 08:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What do you believe are the biggest errors of judgement that you have displayed yourself whilst acting as an arbitrator and as a functionary. Discuss how you would have approach the issues with the benefit of hindsight, how things might have been done differently and if re-elected, how you would try to limit these errors. I ask this primarily to evaluate your suitability to serve as an arbitrator, but also to provide some useful information/answers for any first time arbitrators who may be elected.
    Complacency - Taking for granted things will work out just fine. The error was for me to assume that at an arbitrator level, my colleagues would know what they are doing. There are unfortunate incidents that happened to members of the Committee or other Wikipedians that got them really entangled, or in a few instances led to them leaving altogether (either voluntarily or involuntarily). I felt that I should have sensed something was amiss and called that out on it while I still could (i.e. "please reconsider, this sounds like a really bad idea"). This really does require me to think a bit ahead about what could possibly go wrong with a certain matter, something that I have improved over the years. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Banedon

  2. There's currently a fairly-new case request [1]. Would you accept the case, and if so, what scope would you set? More contentiously, would you incline towards desysopping Salvidrim, or not? I realize I'm asking this question before the evidence of the case is presented, or even before it's accepted, which makes getting the facts correct harder. That's why I am only asking for first impressions, and will not hold it against you if your first impressions are based on incorrect assumptions. If you prefer, you can say something like "I assume [these things happened]. Based on these not-necessarily correct assumptions, I will do [this]".)
    Accept, with a view of examining whether the edits and use of administrator tools were appropriate or not. Too early to make any call on the tools unless a Level II de-sysop is urgently required (which I don't think is called for at this moment), and I'll need to review the evidence more extensively first (even at an initial stage). - - Mailer Diablo 05:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a precedent of an editor with advanced permission losing all his rights under similar circumstances more than seven years ago, though at that time it was more for a lack of response to a 'show cause' notice. But I'll make my position clear. Any use of administrator tools or/and advanced permissions to aid, abet, counsel or procure paid editing is incompatible with and fundamentally breaches the community's trust in that editor to hold such privileges. Imagine how public confidence in Wikipedia will be shaken at its very core if people ever find out that administrative or advanced rights can be auctioned off to the highest bidder/lobbyist/PR agency and then its powers used to exercise editorial control on Wikipedia. - Mailer Diablo 09:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Do you believe that an editor's positive contributions should matter in a case before the arbitration committee? For example, suppose Alice and Bob end up in an arbitration case in which both editors violated WP:BATTLEGROUND equally. Alice has written 100 FAs and 200 GAs, while Bob only registered an account a month ago. Would you sanction them both equally? If so, do you believe that content creation does not matter in a conduct dispute? If not, which editor would you sanction more, and why?
    Any sanction here, if imposed, is mainly to ensure that both editors no longer turn Wikipedia into a battleground. Content contributions would factor in to the extent of determining whether the editor(s) intend to continue contribute positively to the encyclopedia. But also at factor (more importantly) would be whether such behaviour is likely to be repeated, (i.e. does Alice/Bob have a history of conduct violations or/and have a protracted dispute?) and the impact on the editing community (e.g. is this a wildfire-like dispute ongoing that is hampering other editors from contributing positively?). - Mailer Diablo 05:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Rschen7754

  2. You are currently an OTRS admin. Do you think this will affect your ability to serve as an arbitrator, in terms of both workload and the potential for any conflicts of interest? --Rschen7754 07:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the workload for both OTRS and ArbCom is becoming more manageable than it used to be (unfortunately because the project userbase is shrinking as a whole). I would of course recuse, if there is a case where I was have major involvement in deciding the course of action over at OTRS, or/and have to assist in the submission of evidence (in private or on the evidence page) as an OTRS administrator about an editor's conduct. The KDS4444 matter is a good example where I will recuse - if ArbCom decided to open a case and I was invited/had to submit OTRS-side evidence on behalf of the OTRS admins. - Mailer Diablo 09:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SilkTork

  2. Hi. Thanks for stepping forward. I am asking this same question to all candidates. What can the committee do that the rest of the community cannot? SilkTork (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a 'back to basics' question, essentially what does the ArbCom do? This is because the very original purpose of ArbCom, a delegated power of Jimbo Wales, is to resolve serious disputes that the community is unable to (ArbPol, Roles and Responsibilities, Sub-section (1)). This means that other forms of dispute resolution mechanisms in the community has failed (e.g. RfC/User Conduct, Mediation, and the now notorious WP:AN/I). Before ArbCom, editors in the earliest turned to Jimbo for such help to resolve such disputes.
    ArbCom's role has evolved over time and the Arbitration Policy's Roles and Responsibilities sub-sections (2) to (4) summarize quite well what the committee does that the rest of the community usually cannot do. Generally if the community is able to handle something and it isn't something confidential/involving non-public data (or the functionaries is able to handle), ArbCom should let the community handle it. - Mailer Diablo 17:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Biblioworm

  2. On this page, I have drafted some detailed proposals (already written as formal motions) which would reform ArbCom's policies and procedures. As an arbitrator, would you propose and/or vote for these motions? If you only support some of the proposals, please name the ones that you support and the ones that you do not support. If you do not support a particular proposal, please elaborate as to what, if anything, would make the proposal acceptable to you.
    I would want these proposals sent to the community for ratification before I will consider them. With all due respect, the first two proposals (1 and 2a) look like devolution with a view towards the eventual disbandment of ArbCom. I will support these motions only if the community ratifies this and the following issues I raise are addressed:
    *Proposal 1a - point (4)) Will WMF agree to this? And even if WMF did agree to this, what happens if WMF decides not to apply English Wikipedia policies, but rather the Terms of Use more generally? Who will you turn to if WMF refuses to act, Jimbo Wales? (keep in mind Jimbo created the ArbCom in the first place because all of these issues went to Jimbo's talk page when the community had no other avenue to turn to!)
    *Proposal 1b - point (5i)) Who will then "approve and remove access to ... CheckUser and Oversight tools" if ArbCom doesn't do so? I don't mind and will actually support a separate elected body on English Wikipedia such as an independent audit committee similar to AUSC, but that has already been disbanded. If it is the crats, are you willing to hand the power to a body that's elected for life and you might not have a chance to have a say at their RfB if you missed them, rather than ArbCom members who are elected to fixed terms? If it is a steward, how will the community respond if the stewards do not have the naunce or/and will not consider English Wikipedia's policy, instead applying meta policies? Turn to Jimbo Wales again?
    1c) Based on the two proposals (point 4 and 5(i)) and these issues, how will you deal with the following hypothetical and fictional scenario:

    Let's say Checkuser Alpha made a controversial block on long-time content-writing User Bravo based on CheckUser evidence that was controversial even between the CheckUsers (say it was related to a hot-button issue, say paid editing for example). Half of them think support Checkuser Alpha, being aligned to his view. The other half think that CheckUser Alpha's checkuser block was an abuse of power, but does not act for fear of wheel-warring. Admin Charlie gets wind of the controversy and some snippets of the evidence through a leak. Admin Charlie, who is aligned with the other half of the politics, brings attention to the issue to the community at large (probably AN/I). The community asks for the evidence but Admin Charlie at first can't produce it because it is non-public information. Checkuser Alpha accuses Admin Charlie of violating NPA for making allegations without any substantive evidence. To address this issue, Admin Charlie emails the ArbCom, WMF and the Ombudsman with the evidence leaked to him. ArbCom then refers to this recently passed proposals, saying "we no longer have jurisdiction to review CU actions, nor can we act on matters unsuitable for public discussion. Sorry mate.". WMF tells Admin Charlie this is a matter for the community to resolve. The Ombudsman tells Admin Charlie that they will need at least two weeks to investigate and they have no clue what on-wiki political issue/dispute is there. Being forced his hand and the community calling for his tools for making a serious allegation against a Checkuser not backed by evidence, Admin Charlie substantiates his allegations with the leaked evidence on the same AN/I thread. Admin Charlie is immediately blocked by Oversighter Echo for posting non-public information, who happens to be aligned with Checkuser Alpha. The community is split right down in the middle on Checkuser Alpha and Oversighter Echo. The stewards say that they will not remove CU and OS rights unless there is a clear consensus (you can assume 50% is not a consensus). Checkuser Alpha files an arbitration request against Admin Charlie, asking for a de-sysop. Admin Charlie is going to 'lose' because all ArbCom can only consider is the fact that he posted information that was Oversighted on AN/I, and cannot consider "matters unsuitable for public discussion". Checkuser Alpha also makes it clear that he will make similar "difficult blocks" in the next two weeks. You are user Delta, you are a long-term wiki-friend of Admin Charlie and you feel strongly against this perceived injustice. After complaining to the Ombudsman about the Oversight block, the Ombudsman tells you this will now take a month to work this out and they will apply meta policy only. What avenue are you left to deal with this matter?

    *Proposal 2a - Auditing) Refer to hypothetical scenario outlined in 1c).
    *Proposal 2b - Scope) That is fine, and arbs should be allowed to amend the scope along with any developments.
    *Proposal 2c - Deadlines) 1 week is too short. 2 weeks might be better. But even so, there is the risk that it may violate principles of natural justice (refer to Collect's questions).
    *Proposal 2d - Non-Parties/Standing) Together with Proposal 1a, that is a dangerous mix. If you are User Delta in scenario 1c), you are barred from submitting evidence because you are not a named party, what will you do?
    *Proposal 2e - Word limits) You might end up with a scenario where evidence is incomplete, or the party simply dumps all the diffs without context (this has happened before).
    *Proposal 3 sounds reasonable.
    *Proposal 4) This sounds like the former Request for Comments/User Conduct, but with teeth. My worry is that there will become a new battleground avenue, where editors use it as a form of vindication (e.g. Editor X is admonished for...). The recycled motions clause might not be sufficient: Think about retaliatory motions (Imagine the irony when we eventually end up with a "Editor X is banned from proposing motions on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions" motion and that is the motion ArbCom passes). - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Smallbones

  2. I’m asking all candidates this question and will use the answers to make a voter guide. Please state whether you will enforce the Terms of Use section on ‘’’paid editing’’’. Should all undeclared paid editors be blocked (after one warning)? Are administrators allowed to accept payment for using their tools for a non-Wiki employer? Can admins do any paid editing and still maintain the neutrality needed to do their work? (Note that only one admin AFAIK has declared as a paid editor since the ToU change). Do you consider the work done at WP:COIN to be useful, or is it just another “drama board”? Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I will, according to policy as interpreted by the community in English Wikipedia.
    Yes.
    Absolutely not, that is not acceptable: As I answered to Banedon's question above, Any use of administrator tools or/and advanced permissions to aid, abet, counsel or procure paid editing is incompatible with and fundamentally breaches the community's trust in that editor to hold such privileges. Imagine how public confidence in Wikipedia will be shaken at its very core if people ever find out that administrative or advanced rights can be auctioned off to the highest bidder/lobbyist/PR agency and then its powers used to exercise editorial control on Wikipedia. But I will not object to an admin accepting paid editing if and only if the admin does not use any admin tools or admin status in doing so (i.e. saying that "I am an admin, I have more credibility, let me write your article for payment!" is *not* acceptable.)
    WP:COIN might generate drama, but is a necessary evil not just to deal with paid editing issues, but also biographies of living persons, corporate/business articles, etc. to ensure compliance with COI guidelines. Dealing with COI is vital to ensure that editors writing or editing articles comply with WP:NPOV. - Mailer Diablo 09:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Bishonen

  2. Hi, Mailer Diablo. I was impressed by your answer to DGG's question 4, where you went more in depth than the other candidates. Especially because of that answer, I'm inclined to support your candidacy. But I've got a niggle — something that surprised me when I saw it. Why don't you watchlist articles?[2] That also entails you don't watchlist their talkpages. You sound almost proud of it, or am I misreading your tone? Bishonen | talk 21:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    Thank you for your question! Yes, I maintain an empty watchlist. This goes back to my early days of editing Wikipedia, and these are my reasons:
    (1) the lack of a watchlist actually is key for me to keep wikistress low (see, e.g., items no. 8 and 9) and to not lose the big picture during my editing experience,
    (2) it is very easy for watchlists to go out of control (just as easy as leaving 100 browser tabs open overnight), and it can consume all the time one that can otherwise spend on exploring new content (articles) to improve on
    (3) I prefer viewing a particular article/page's entire history in chronological order than through a watchlist (this is a habit I had developed after performing Oversight responsibilities for a long time, which tend to focus more on page history)
    (4) it is very tempting with a watchlist to develop ownership behaviour over articles (by tracking every single minor change), especially for those articles one have written or substantially contributed to, as well as to watch live drama.
    I tend to refer to my own contribs to track any progress of talk page discussions (now assisted by the Alerts feature - I particularly don't like the revert alert feature as it actually encourages edit warring) - the lack of a [rollback] button indicates further edits. If something is important enough, I would note it down using on a paper to-do list. Of course, this is just is my personal opinion, watch-list works differently for everyone. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Nuro Dragonfly

  2. Hello, my question is simple; how will you correct the arbitrary removal of musical/band articles by specific types of 'editors' who claim a lack of 'notoriety' due to not being able to find some link to another website as somehow being the only standard WikiPedia excepts? I personally barely, if at all in my original works, will cite a website, with some exceptions. The arbitrary attitudes of these types of 'editors' is the reason that the Wiki has a serious lack of editors, who have the time and energy to correctly and with good faith write articles, to fill those missing ones, are falling by the way side. To be specific the individual attitudes of Admin Editors who have very little care for the efforts of others, regardless of some attempt at a non-biased and neutral Wiki adherence. I consider the complete body of works by musicians and bands to be the goal, not some mistaken interpretation on 'notoriety' on a specific album/song, and therefore it to be omitted. How will you deal with this matter in the Wiki Admin sphere post haste?Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 02:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The core policy here is verifiability. Can I based on what was written in the new article, be able to tell that the content is verifiable. There is no requirement that external websites/sources be included upon creation but it has to convince any editor that based on the text in the new created article, reliable sources asserting notability does exist out there. If that does not exist, then it might possibly fall foul of original research or what Wikipedia is not (also core policies).
    As for what should be included or not included, that is a criteria set by the community (notability standards). You should discuss with fellow editors if you desire the standards to be changed. What ArbCom can do is if the administrator ignores policies and guidelines, but what ArbCom can't (and shouldn't) normally do is to change the policies and guidelines we disagree with without any community consensus. (i.e. policy by fiat)
    I do new page patrol myself from time to time, and I am concerned when someone pulls the trigger too quickly or template a newbie indiscriminately. I do agree that we shouldn't bite the newcomers. If a case does come to me about such chronic behaviour, I'll look at each in its own facts and merits and act accordingly. - Mailer Diablo 07:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Berean Hunter

  2. Viewpoint 1: Policy should be interpreted as it is written and enforced as such. If the goals are not being met then the policy should be reviewed and perhaps changed but in the meantime this is the status quo. Viewpoint 2: Policy should be interpreted for its intent over the wording. Where conflict arises between wording and intent, either do not enforce or possibly customize enforcement to try to achieve the intent per IAR. How would you describe your own viewpoint relative to the two opposing views above?
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Those who knew me from my old days in Wikipedia would know that I was a notorious policy wonk (viewpoint 1). But over time I have also developed the view of considering why rules existed in the first place (viewpoint 2). I combine both viewpoints, and I don't think they are necessarily mutually exclusive.
    - In most cases, the intent aligns with the wording so that is not a problem (especially for core policies).
    - In instances where there is a conflict, my form of IAR these days is to "give the benefit of the doubt" and asking for a consensus or other opinion before taking action.
    I believe in consultative decision-making, and that everyone should be given a reasonable chance of reform; IAR is not a blank cheque to ignore consensus, and too often unilateral IAR decisions results in poor decision-making that one tends to regret later on. The latter type of overriding decisions are usually reserved for matters with legal implications, and usually WMF would probably have acted before any IAR "enforcement" is necessary. - Mailer Diablo 07:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Candidates/Mailer_diablo/Questions&oldid=1044284542"