Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/RickinBaltimore/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 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 01:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from My name is not dave

  2. I'm glad to see that somebody has decided to nominate themselves; although we have 7 days to go still, you are the first in two/three days to put themselves in for the running. That is actually quite concerning, and what do you make of this low interest? My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering that myself to be honest. Part of me thought that maybe there was a glitch in the system with the nominations not showing up properly, though that was just a wild hair. As for WHY this is, I wish I had an answer. Perhaps there isn't enough of an interest in people willing to put themselves out there for the nomination/scrutiny, perhaps people just flat out don't want to do it. It could also be people don't want to be the first one, and are waiting for someone to go first to then follow. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect

  2. Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
    No, not every "case" needs to have "sanctions". In some cases, the review of the case can show that nothing needs to be done with regards to sanctions. Many times a case will lead to some sort of sanctions, however this isn't a mandatory thing to have happen. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:31, 14 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?
    There could be the perception that this admin does have a skewed or biased viewpoint towards that editor, especially if the admin has stated as such on their editor's talk page. While the admin may still stay impartial to the editor, this would be an area where the admin's impartiality could be called into question regarding that editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:31, 14 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?
    In the case where an editor as the subject of an case is out of the country, or unable to respond to the case due to travel, or unforeseen events, a slight (though not indefinite by any stretch) delay should be allotted to allow a response. The same goes for multiple editors, there should be the ability to allow for a proper response, but again within a reasonable amount of time. With regards to "last-minute" evidence, there needs to be a chance to rebut or comment on this, but that needs to be done in a timely manner as to not allow the case to go on indefinitely. Finally, arbitrators shouldn't present evidence that wasn't seen as before in the decision itself, unless in extreme circumstances. While this evidence could be used to sway a decision in one direction or another, this can call the entire case into question, as evidence that isn't presented then shows "out of the blue" could be seen as hiding or withholding evidence. There are cases however where arbitrators may have access to information that is not readily available in extreme cases, and could be factored in the decision. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from InsaneHacker

  2. The arbitration policy states that arbitrators are expected to recuse themselves from proceedings if they have a conflict of interest. What do you consider conflicts of interest? Are there any situations that may be considered COI "grey areas" that you have an opinion on?
    A conflict of interest in a proceeding would be one where for instance an arbitrator has frequently interacted with the accused party, or the accuser, and there could be seen the idea that the arb may not be able to maintain a neutral view through the process. Also, if regarding a topic, there could be a COI if it is a topic area the arb is known to edit in frequently, or has had discussions within that area, there could be a bias seen there. More times than not however, I have seen where an arb will recuse themselves if they feel that their involvement in a case will call the case into question. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There is currently no requirement that ArbCom members have to be administrators, but historically every arbitrator has also been an admin. Do you see any value in having non-administrators on the commitee, why/why not? (I'm especially interested in answers from non-admin nominees)
    Seeing as in 2015 I ran as a non-admin candidate this is an interesting question. I would say that a non-admin does have the capabilities to be a good arbitrator, for instance I know some very well respected editors that have chosen not to be an admin. I would want the best people to be on the ArbCom, regardless if they are admins or not. While admins have more tools at their disposal (and in some areas, this may help with a case), non-admins, especially ones in good standing, could make for good arbs. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Do you think that administrators or users in good standing who generally contribute to the project in a constructive manner should be given more leeway when it comes to sanctions against them (also referred to as the Super Mario problem)? If not, do you think this happens currently, and if so, what can be done to prevent it?
    No, I think editors need to be handled on a case by case basis, and the rules of Wikipedia apply to all editors equally. That being said, admins SHOULD be held to a standard that is higher than a regular editor, seeing as they were given permissions by the community to work at this level. An admin who abuses their powers, and whose actions would lead to a block should be stripped of their powers and blocked like a regular editor. In a way having a person in that role, who then damages the project with their behavior is worse than your garden variety vandal who blanks a page or writes an obscene message on a page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Banedon

  2. Were there any Arbcom decisions in the recent past that you disagreed with? That is, were there any motions that you would have voted against the majority on, proposed decisions that you would have drafted differently, etc? If so, what would you have supported / drafted instead, and why?
    I've reviewed the cases from the past few years, and looking at the results of the cases, and the actions taken by the Committee, I do not feel that the decisions that were made were in needing of change. The Magioladitis cases from this year struck me of the most interest, as in March the Committee in essence gave one last chance to perform as an Admin in good standing, however in September, their admin rights were taken away due to repeated misuse of the tools. While some would say this should have been done in March, I think this shows how the ArbCom can work with the community and try to resolve an issue at first without going to a "nuclear option". RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. My apologies I should've phrased the question better. A lot of the Arbcom motions are quite boring since they're uncontroversial enough to pass unanimously. I'm interested in the ones that split the current committee. For example, would you have voted to accept or decline this case request (if you've not seen that, don't look at the comments from current arbitrators)? Would you have supported or opposed this proposed remedy? What about this, or this? Please don't feel like you have to look through all those massive cases, their evidence pages, and so on. If you make a decision based on the findings of fact earlier on the page to save time, that's fine (just say so).
    With the first example you gave, I would have been in the camp that would decline the case. The subject of the case was showing that he understood the reason for the case, and was going to make a good faith effort to try to resolve the behavior that led to the creation of the case. Sometimes the best action that ArbCom can take is no action, especially when it appears that the issue is going to be handled by the community. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Harry

  2. Hi Rick, thanks for standing. You probably won't be the only person I ask this question, but you're the first. As you mention in your statement, a lot of your admin work is essential front-line stuff. Not that it isn't good to have arbs who know what it's like at the coalface, but can you point to a few examples where you've advocated strongly for a position but consensus has gone the other way, or you've found yourself in a moral dilemma, or you've made a decision as an admin that you stand by but that others have strongly disagreed with? I want to see how you handle yourself when things don't go your way.
    One of the things about being an admin is that you have to stand by your convictions when making a decision that may not seem popular to some or many. However, consensus does rule the day. I have had a few times where a page I have deleted was restore after a discussion at Deletion Review. While I felt that the page warranted a deletion, deletion review determined this was not the case, and I overturned my deletion. To be honest, when things don't "go my way" here on Wikipedia, I tend to let them slide. I don't let decisions that go against my thoughts bother me more than a moment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Newyorkbrad

  2. In your candidate statement you mention that your account was previously known as RickKJr. Long ago there was a well-known administrator with the similar username RickK. There are some folks speculating on an external site as to whether this has any significance. I suspect it is more likely to be some sort of coincidence, but if you wish, here's a chance to clear it up.
    Sure thing. It's my first name, last initial, and I'm a Junior. To be honest I had no idea of the RickK account when I did this, and I quickly changed upon learning of it. Had I known, this never would been an issue. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda Arendt

  2. Thank you for standing! Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely can do so. I was asked about this case above in a different light, and I did not read Opabinia regalis' comment, or any other arbs', on purpose to give myself an unbiased answer to that question. Reading her comment, I think that summed up the issue perfectly. Civility at times on the project can be dicey at best, and just the suggestion to "sleep on it" can go a long way. It was a well-thought out response to a very tough issue, that being how to control and handle one's emotions. I would have delcined the case as well, though I don't think I could have expressed it as well as OR did in their comment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:ShakespeareFan00

  2. The Arbitration Committee has to tackle many issues, but I will use a specific topical example, How would you if appointed handle an arbitration case where 'inappropriate' language or innuendo about a female BLP or contributor was alleged?
    I would handle this case as I would with any BLP case, weigh the case on its merits and the evidence presented, assess the details, and give my opinion, and accept or decline the case from there. I understand the underlying concerns for how females are treated on the internet and Wikipedia, however I do not feel that there needs to be special protection for female BLP or contributors, as all deserve the same consideration and respect. In essence, I'd handle it like a case for a male BLP, trans BLP, non-gendered BLP, etc. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nick

  2. Pick three Arbitration cases from the last six years, explain in detail what aspects of the committee you agree with, what aspects you disagree with, and what you would attempt to do differently. Where you disagree with the previous outcomes and where you would do things differently, indicate how you would attempt to gain consensus and support from the other committee members. You can copy bits of your answers to the above question from Banedon if suitable/relevant.
    First, as you stated in your question, I will go back to the example of the one listed above by Banedon. As I stated in that question, I would have declined that case. This was a situation that in the end was better served by allowing the party in question time to think over their actions, pull back "from the brink" in a sense, and handle the issue in such a way that no action from the committee was needed.

    The second case I looked at was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin. With this case, I would have sided with the arbitrators and agreed with the final decision. This was a case that the evidence was clear and apparent that Arthur had lost the trust of the community to function as an admin, that he overstepped his role as an admin in removing permissions from a user during a discussion, and failed to advised the admin he overruled. The actions taken warranted the sanctions leveed, and the loss of admin rights was justified.

    The last of the cases that I looked at was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man. Again I agreed with the decision made by the arbitrators, and the resolution of the case. TRM's behavior was put up for evidence, and the evidence showed a history of uncivil treatment and conflict with editors that he had issue with. This was a complicated resolution however, as one of the other parties, George Ho, was also cited for disruption and canvassing the case. There was one issue I had with the decision, and the fact it took a remedy nearly a year later was of note. The initial decision that "The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors" was not clear enough in its scope and led to confusion on how, if needed, to sanction TRM. The later remedy "The Rambling Man is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence." made this much clearer. This however I felt should have been addressed much sooner, to give the community a clearer idea of what was to be expected from the editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carrite

  2. I supported you last time when you ran for ArbCom under your old user name and offered you a bit of advice after the votes were counted on things you might do to be given closer consideration in a future campaign, if being on the committee was really what you wanted to do. At least some of these things you've done, which indicates to me that you are indeed serious about winning election to ArbCom. What I really have trouble grasping, however — not just of you, really, but of virtually any candidate — is why you want to take the "Shit Bucket Challenge" (as Iridescent has colorfully called it) as a member of Arbcom. What is it about a seat on Arbcom that interests you? Are you looking to change things? Are you looking to make things run better? Are there operational ideas you have that you feel could be implemented to make the site disciplinary process run more efficiently? Why are you so interested in doing this to yourself — opening yourself to abuse from disgruntled crazies, spending hundreds of hours a year sifting through email and intracommittee messages? Just......... why? thanks, —tim
    I apologize for the delay, weekends are a busy time for me offline, so that's the reason for the delay. To answer your question: Why not? I appreciate the work that editors do at Wikipedia. Working with ArbCom, I feel like I can give my best efforts to the project as a whole, with my skills in listening, negotiating and conflict resolution, that I do in real life as well. In essence, I would like Wikipedia to run better, and help work and address some of the areas that are of the biggest headaches. Will this be a thankless job? Absolutely. Am I willing to take it on? Again absolutely. I don't know what impact I will make overall to the project, but I want it to be a positive one. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:53, 20 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 ) 04:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have felt that policy needs to be decided by the community, by consensus. ArbCom is best, as you said, when it is dealing with issues of content, and helping interpret how to handle such issues. A ruling from ArbCom, such as the psuedoscience cases can be used by the community to help create a policy, but ArbCom should not in itself dictate how the policy should be created. There are extreme cases where ArbCom does need to be at the point for these issues, but mainly ArbCom does its best interpreting content issues. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:46, 21 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 ) 04:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    Ban appeals I feel should be as open as possible, within the limits of privacy. Since bans affect the community as a whole, the community should be able to see what is going on, within the limits of what can actually be provided. The fact ArbCom has had a lower number of issues over recent years shows that the community tends to be handling issues on its own a bit better than previous years, which can be expected as Wikipedia continues to mature as a site. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:46, 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 ) 04:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    The terms of use of the site are just that, wike the caveat being that this is for Wikimedia, not just the EN WP. (see WP:TOS) This being said, this is a legal issue, and the ArbCom does need to look into issues that may violate the TOS, as again it is a legal matter with regards to policy. Many items within the TOS however are already covered by polict on Wikipedia, so in essence, ArbCom does look into issues within the TOS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:46, 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 ) 04:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    Regardless of good faith or bad faith editing, outing is something that should be avoided, period. If there is an issue that might involve a legal matter, that needs to stay away from public eyes as much as possible. Even the worst editors have the right to not be outed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:46, 21 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) 15:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually a pretty good question. In my opinion, the committee tends to be the "last word" when it comes to disputes, in cases where the community CAN'T solve an issue, and there needs to be clarification on it. Sometimes there can be topics or areas which become contentious, and an impartial body needs to review the evidence and information given to produce a resolution. Many times I have seen the community settle issues way before ArbCom is required, however there are times that the committee needs to address an issue. As it states in the arbitration policy: ArbCom is there "To act as a final binding decision-maker", and "To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons". Additionally ArbCom is used to approve access to CheckUser and Oversight as well. These three items are ones that the community can't do on their own in itself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:16, 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.
    First of all, let me apologize again for the delay. With that said here's my answer to your question.

    The first proposal I would be fully against. There needs to be a way for matters related to privacy to be handled, and this proposal doesn't delineate a way of doing so. There has to be a manner of handling this issues, off wiki, to maintain privacy. The second point is also a no-go, because unlike admins, functionaries will have access to different views, some that contain private data. That's not something that should be pulled from the duties of ArbCom in my opinion, and shouldn't be decided on in the manner that we currently have admins nominated and made admins by the community.

    The second proposal is a bit of a mixed bag for me. The first part, regarding auditing, I do not feel would work. The global ombudsman doesn't have the roles to work with the CheckUser function on the English Wikipedia, and this ties into the section above. This is an area that would need to stay with the committee. The next point I agree with, there need to be a structured scope of the case setup, as with the closing of the case. It would only make sense to have this formally done I think. The evidence/workshop timeline however I do not agree with. There needs to be a way to review evidence after it is submitted, and if the timeline is set in such a way that an editor cannot refute or defend from evidence presented, this can negatively affect a case. As for submission of evidence, any party should be able to submit evidence to a case. There shouldn't be a restriction on evidence, as all avenues in a case should be explored.

    For the third item, this seems like adding bureaucracy for the sake of adding it. As it stands now, this is something I would be against, as they way this is written this is a solution in search of a problem.

    As for the final proposal, in theory, this is a great idea, however we do not operate in theory. This would turn the page into yet another drama board, and I could see the inevitable cases forming based on the motions added to a case. In short, no I would not think this is a good idea. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:32, 27 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) 00:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that the ToU regarding undisclosed paid editing needs to be enforced. I feel a warning is warranted, and if editing continues after said warning, then a block is justified. In many cases it's easy to see who is editing on a paid basis, and there have been a number of SPI cases regarding sock farms dedicated to paid editing.

    With regards to admins and using their tools with payment, along with general editing, this is a very tenuous area. Admins, by their nature, need to remain neutral and refrain from any conflict of interest. If an admin should be shown to be using their tools in conjunction with being paid to edit, then this is a violation of their admin roles I feel. However, as of now we do not have a community consensus on this area, but personally an admin should recluse themselves from any possible area of a conflict of interest. I would hope that an admin in this situation would refrain from making any and all edits, up to and including admin tasks, that could show a direct COI.

    As for COIN, I do feel that the work there is valuable to the project as a whole. The board, much like almost all administrative boards, tends to stir up some drama, but this is a board that still serves a useful purpose. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:27, 27 November 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) 02:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Both viewpoints have merit, and both viewpoints have their flaws. The first viewpoint needs to be done, as policy is set for a reason, and does need to be followed. That being said, policy can sometimes hamper editing and the project as a whole. Per WP:POLICY "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." The last statement then leads into the 2nd viewpoint. WP:IAR exists for those times where common sense should take the place of blind policy enforcement. We aren't a bureaucracy after all and quoting that article "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles."

    My viewpoint then is a mix of both, that policy is there, and was set by community consensus, and should be followed. Consensus however is fluid and can change (barring legal matters, such as BLP issues like libel etc.) and if policy needs to be adjust to meet that consensus, it should be done so. I would say I would look more that the principle of the policy, not the black and wording. The principle behind the policy in the end is what matters. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Candidates/RickinBaltimore/Questions&oldid=1044284505"