Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Elen of the Roads/Questions
In today's world, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Elen of the Roads/Questions has become a topic of great relevance and interest both on a personal level and in society in general. With the advancement of technology and globalization, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Elen of the Roads/Questions has acquired unprecedented importance in our daily lives. In this article, we will explore in detail Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Elen of the Roads/Questions and its impact on various aspects, from its influence on the economy to its role in popular culture. Through deep and insightful analysis, we will unravel the mysteries and complexities surrounding Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Elen of the Roads/Questions, providing a clear and comprehensive view of its relevance in today's world.
Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.
Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.
General questions
Skills and experience:
a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
In real life I work in local government in England, and I have been the complaints officer for a city. While this has proved less useful particularly in the last year, I still think that the main focus of the committee should be dispute resolution, and I have years of experience of identifying the issues out of a morass of data, and finding the appropriate response to the problem based on policy and experience.
b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.
Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings, or with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions? What factors might generally influence you?
Neither. Or both. I'm usually described as on the lenient side, but I will use blocks and bans if necessary. Outside of Arbcom, I've found blocks to be most effective on young people, who accept them as a feature of the site, and are flexible enough in their outlook to work out how to avoid one next time. If a editor is so disruptive that everyone else is having their editing in quiet enjoyment destroyed, then banning is the only option. On the other hand, if no-one is being terribly disruptive, it's their failure to agree that is disruptive, then I prefer more creative solutions, as in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping where the two main protagionists were sanctioned only to stay away from discussion about the name of the art, because that was the only problem area.
ArbCom Practices:
a) ArbCom and policies:
i) ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
I find it fascinating whenever the opportunity arises to view policy as it started out, or talk to those involved in its original creation. What I find is that the original policies were frequently simple, a shorthand for an idea that the community as a whole had signed up to. Now, it frequently seems that editors quibble endlessly over a single word, often because they have failed to agree on the overall intention. Sometimes policies are written in such a technical way that the words have lost their natural meaning. Sometimes policies conflict. Or it may be that times and situations have changed, and policy has not kept up. Arbcom has no role in saying "let's have a policy to...ban pink signatures!" But it does have a role in pointing up problems. In some cases this may mean interpreting a confusing policy, or emphasising one aspect over another where there is a conflict. In other cases, the committee may have to toss it back to the community and say "this is not up to snuff, any volunteers for a working party to look at it".
ii) The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?
iii) Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?
b) Article 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? Please give reasons.
c) ArbCom and motions:
i) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
ii) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
iii) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2012 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.
d) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
i) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
There is a blanket approach at the moment - everything stays. I'd like the committee to use approaches similar to the guidelines I am familiar with in the UK, which creates a fine grain of data, and has different rules for different circumstances - so if you've ever been convicted of certain crimes it never goes off the record and if you wanted to (say) work with kids it would follow you around for life, while traffic violations expire after five years, allegations that are investigated and found unproven have to disappear from 'the system' rapidly.
ii) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
All of the above implies the need for better tools. Once something gets into an email system, it's well nigh impossible to get it back out again, so personal data - even if emailed *to* the committee - should not get to the committee by email. Businesses worked out years ago that it was safer to pour it into a database - the ancestors of our modern crm systems - that everyone looked at, but no-one could copy out of. The WMF is looking at a crm system now. This would help a lot with information management, as an entire record can be set to expire and moved out of sight or out of existence.
iii) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
iv) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
vi) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them? To what extent, if any, does the Community have a right to see Arbitration evidence and statements?
I'm going to answer this one, because it's one of the few areas where I feel I had an actual impact on the committee. Taking the English legal principle that a man has a right to face his accusers, one of the things I insisted on, insisted on having written into procedures etc, was that where Foo emailed us with allegations about Bar, we should in most instances make Bar aware of the allegations against them. We should make Bar aware that Foo has made these allegations, and before we do so, we should make Foo aware that this is what we are going to do if he wishes to pursue this line. Previously, what happened frequently was that Bar was given a precis and told that 'another editor' had made allegations. So to answer your question, unless there are some exceptional circumstances (eg we have had information from law enforcement agencies very occasionally), an editor should not be able to make anonymous allegations, and the editor who is the subject of the allegations must be able to see the evidence in toto, not a precis. However, this does not necessarily mean that the information should be made public - sometimes the evidence is given in camera for a good reason, and it is preferable to carry out an investigation, rather than plaster an allegation all over the project.
e) Past Cases The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
Division of responsibilities:
a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
b) "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?
c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
The one that makes me really sad was the case concerning Rich Farmbrough. Here you have an editor who has contributed for years, and who only ever wanted the best for the project. But the wide expanses in which they used to roam have turned into a housing estate, full of little gardens and grass you can't walk on. Alot of people wanted to do bad things to Helpful Pixie Bot. I just wish it could have ended better somehow. I know people are going to think this bizarre, but when Rich finally said he was leaving, I contemplated leaving too, because although what he did breached sanctions and pissed people off and so forth, it just seemed such a bloody awful way for things to have gone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
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?
Individual questions
Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. In past years, I have gone strictly based on points, as I was not familiar with candidates; that is no longer true. This year, I reserve the right to deviate from this past practice, but missing answers will still be noted. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.
The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.
A: I'm surprised didn't die of old age. Cases really do take too long, and that one took too long.
What is the purpose of a WikiProject?
A: It should be a group of folks with a common interest getting together to pool their efforts in furthering their topic of interest, deciding a common approach, picking priorities, generally geeing each other up and supporting the development of the topic
Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
A: As anyone who has ever run a church group, charity or voluntary organisation will tell you, vested contributors are essential. They do all the heavy lifting. You can't run effectively just on the people who can only give you an hour or two, even if you have hundreds of them. However, you do need to add to your vested contributors from time to time, and this can be where problems arise with things like resistance to change. I think we are seeing that happen - Wikipedia is changing, and some of those who have been here from the early days are finding that difficult. It was their playground, where they made exciting things happen. Now there are too many signs saying Walk/Don't Walk (I was going to say they can't fit their square peg into all the round holes, but that sounds vaguely indecent). Some have jumped, some been pushed. I think it is sad. What's to be done? Well, understanding that would help. Empathy. Dialogue. Efforts to defuse tensions, make the "old guard" feel still valued, but at the same time tackle the fact that the lawyers and the rules seem to be here to stay.
Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?
A:If the committee did something that I really really could not agree with I suppose I could leave in a huff and a sedan chair. But then if they all really really disagreed with me, they might just kick me out anyway.
a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
A:
ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?
A: (a) yes it's impossible to legislate for everything, so there can be areas that have no direct instruction. Also, sometimes you can see someone trying to pick the least worst option. (b) If it's bloody obvious I suppose - but then if it's so bloody obvious, one would expect the community to be up in arms anyway. Actually one instance where it would be likely is following an emergency desysop, where Arbcom actually has some info about what's going on that might not be available to the community generally.
What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?
A:
What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?
A:
If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
A:
Thank you. Rschen7754 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Additional question: You were "reminded" in the Rich Farmbrough case. What are your thoughts about that? --Rschen7754 07:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
What can I say - it was a good reminder. I just didn't think of Helpful Pixie Bot as being an extension of Rich Farmbrough, so I didn't see stopping the bot as blocking him, just switching off an annoying piece of code that was malfunctioning (or at least not operating within the parameters imposed by the community). That was a mistake. The community definitely sees bots as part of the operator both in terms of accountability and in the sense of "in dispute with" from WP:INVOLVED. It was an error of judgement on my part, and it was right to call me out on it. I think its the only time I've done something and absolutely everybody said it was a bad idea. As you might expect, there are instances where opinions have been divided, and sometimes I have revisited a decision and concluded with the benefit of hindsight that there was probably a better option, but as far as I recall, this is the only time there was universal agreement that I got it wrong.
Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end.
There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally.
How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?
A:
What does "Civility" mean to you?
A: Civility is a slippery beggar: it always means 'appropriate social behaviour according to the norms of the social context", but that has such a wide range that it's hopeless as a measure. What is the social context? "Behaviur that would be acceptable in an academic environment." Would that be like the University of Wallamalloo? And so it goes.
I'm pointing folks at User:Elen of the Roads/On editing in a collaborative project for a lengthy answer. The short answer is that I think the project needs to make its own definition of what constitutes appropriate social behaviour in the context of creating an online encyclopaedia, agree it, publicise it, and stick to it. Broad brush - but with more agreement on terms than is there at the moment.
Looking at the current Arbcom composition, it appears to me that most of the committee's members are male. (The same appears to be true of the candidates running in this election.) Why do you think this is the case? Do you feel that a lack of women is a detriment to the committee?
I think it is the case, but I don't know why. There aren't as many female admins as there are women editors either, possibly for similar reasons. I think more female voices would make the committee different maybe, but I wouldn't want to trade on stereotypes.
Questions from Cunard
Please do not feel the need to answer all my questions. I've listed the topics that I'm most interested in; see my note below. The other questions can be left unanswered if you don't have the time or inclination to answer all the questions. Cunard (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? If you are interested in helping the community assess the consensus at RfCs and other discussions, please consider watchlisting it. If not, then no worries.
Part of the discussion is about whether admins can summarily overturn non-admin closes of RfCs. Suppose that a non-admin editor in good standing closes an RfC. The non-admin was not involved in the discussion and has not previously expressed an opinion about the topic. An editor disagrees with the close and requests admin review. Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?
Arguments for: (i) the safeguard is necessary in case the closer is inexperienced, (ii) having been through an RfA, admins are entrusted by the community to assess the consensus in discussions, and (iii) this would parallel other processes. Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions states, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure states, "All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin; but if the conditions listed above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure."
Arguments against: (i) admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD (which in the case of deletion requires the admin flag), (ii) non-admins who have spent hours reading a discussion and summarizing the consensus should be given more respect, and (iii) summarily overturning closes discourages non-admins from closing RfCs, which will aggravate the perpetually backlogged Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. A large number of the closers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4 are non-admins.
Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?
Do you agree or disagree that an RfC can be overturned by community consensus at WP:AN? Describe how you believe an RfC close review should be like in terms of its format: Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Move review, or something else.
Arbitrator SilkTork (talk·contribs) wrote, "I would prefer if all Committee discussions were held on Wikipedia, except for those matters which do require privacy." I believe this is a position supported by many members of the community.
Please explain why you agree or disagree with SilkTork's position.
If you agree with SilkTork's position, describe how you will actively promote changing the Arbitration Committee's tendency to hold non-privacy-related discussions off-wiki.
Oh absolutely. While we occasionally get personal data that should not be disclosed, the rest is about edits made to a website. Hardly top seekrit. It would require a massive change in mindset though - the committee have got used to saying everything on a mailing list, and it being completely out of sight. I personally moved to always drafting proposed decisions onwiki, but I haven't done many of them, and really cases are only a part of the overall activity. Should ban appeals be recorded and discussed onwiki for example?
See also for example User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 8#Forgetting something?. Arbitrator SilkTork (talk·contribs) wrote, "I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a Committee member should recuse because someone expressed dissatisfaction with some action they made, particularly when it was over three years ago and didn't lead to any dispute. There is a thought that it wouldn't do any personal harm if I recused, and I can see that, but I don't want to set a precedent that a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them."
Describe your criteria for recusing when a party request you to recuse.
Former arbitrator Cool Hand Luke (talk·contribs) has a list of his biases on his user page at User:Cool Hand Luke#My biases. Please describe when you will recuse to avoid the appearance of bias. For example, you might be heavily involved in a WikiProject or Wikimedia chapter and decide to recuse when an arbitration case involves one of its members. Or you might recuse if an arbitration case relates to a particular topic area that you have heavily edited.
WP:BLP1E states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The third condition is "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Discuss how this would factor into your assessment of consensus in an AfD involving a BLP, where BLP1E is cited as an argument for deletion. Feel free to mention the Jill Kelley AfD in your answer or to discuss this generally.
The policy Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus states, "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." Wikipedia:Deletion review states, "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed" (though the admin also has the discretion to relist the debate).
(a) If "normally" is removed, there would be a conflict between the policy and deletion review practice. Why are admin decisions at XfD not treated equally to other admin actions? Do you agree or disagree with this different treatment?
When closing an XfD or RfC, how would the number of votes for a position factor into your decision? Suppose the vote count for a non-policy-based position is significantly higher than for a policy-based position (perhaps 80% vs. 20%). Further suppose that there is substantial participation and that all of the participants are experienced editors in good-standing. Do you close as consensus in favor of the non-policy-based position, consensus in favor of the policy-based position, or no consensus? Feel free to speak generally or to use the the AfD mentioned in #1 if it is applicable.
Regarding the previous question: Does the community collectively determine what the policy-based position is through their discussion at the XfD or RfC? Should the closing admin be tasked with determining the policy-based position? Or should there be a balance of the two?
Would you have supported or opposed the motion that passed at the BLP deletions case request in January 2010?
Note and thank you
I have asked many questions here. If you are short on time or do not want to answer all the questions, please do not feel that you need to answer all my questions. I am most interested in your answers to #RfC closes and #Transparency, so please concentrate on those questions, answer other questions on topics that interest you, and skip the rest if you want.
Thank you for running to be on the Arbitration Committee. I look forward to your answers to my questions. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?
A: While the committee is the size that it is, it is not an issue to have someone drop out for a couple of months. The problem is that there is no way of replacing the missing person, so it would make no difference if there was a mechanism for getting rid of inactive Arbs, you couldn't vote in new ones until the next election. If the committee downsizes to less than ten, I think that could become a problem, but I don't have a solution in my pocket. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team: these were the initial internal teams set up by the Arbitration Committee (I note that you were on the incoming mail team). Whilst this division has now evolved, which part of in the internal operations of the committee do you feel you could bring expertise to, and why?
A:
Question(s) from Risker
With the exception of very limited situations, the Committee renders decisions only on matters at the request of one or more members of the community. Decisions on which the Arbitration Committee holds votes are passed or failed based on majority support. At times, the members of the Committee can be divided on an appropriate course of action, and voting outcomes will sometimes be determined by only one or two votes.
How do you feel about the concept of committee solidarity, i.e. all members of the committee standing by a decision that has been made in accord with committee processes? If you are elected, will you personally be able to publicly uphold the considered decision of the Committee as a whole, even if the position you took did not receive majority support? How would you deal with a situation in which you have a strongly held position that is not supported by the Committee as a whole?
I'll look forward to reading your response. Risker (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Interesting that you should ask that here. There are several questions in here all packed together, so let's unpick a little.
Motions and case decisions are passed on a majority vote, so if the majority agree, that is what will happen. Any lone dissenting voice does not have consensus and filing a minority report - "I disagreed, here's why, but the consensus decision was.....so that is what will happen" is the most one can say.
What we are seeing a lot of at the moment though is very near run things, split votes, decisions coming down to the wire, all indicating that the committee does not have internal consensus on certain things. This is a much more difficult situation, because a motion may be defeated by a narrow margin only to pop up again in another format shortly after (as we have seen with civility), leaving the committee itself looking like it needs dispute resolution. In some recent instances, members of the committee seem to have put differing interpretations on something they are voting for, or have voted for in the past, which doesn't help either. I would be concerned if that continued - this being Wikipedia, I'm not sure that deciding by one vote is a good thing, regardless of my opinion of the motion, and one might perhaps want to look again at margins and processes.
I've not known the committee make such a shocking bad decision that I couldn't live with it. Rather, I think it tends to not do something, which later comes back round again leaving one saying "well, I did say last time...". I don't think that response is particularly problematic. However, if the decision is X, one either confirms (minority report notwithstanding) that X is what has been decided and one will work with X, or I suppose one leaves in a huff and a sedan chair. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Question from SilkTork
As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which time zone (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone). SilkTork✔Tea time 14:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm in the UK, so edit on UTC or BST. I normally edit in the evening (can be through to the early morning), but also sometimes during the day as well. I have noticed that I can be the only active checkuser on Sunday afternoon/evening --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Question from Bazonka
Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee? Bazonka (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm personally not involved off-line, through preference rather than lack of opportunity. Being on the committee makes me a bit wary I must say. I used to be the complaints manager for the city, and if anyone asked I avoided answering, because otherwise I got a flood of complaints about refuse collection. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" you, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all.
Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?
The definition used by the main UK Arbitration organisation, ACAS is as follows - arbitration involves an impartial outsider being asked to make a decision on a dispute. The arbitrator makes a firm decision on a case based on the evidence presented by the parties. Arbitration is voluntary, so both sides must agree to go to arbitration; they should also agree in advance that they will abide by the arbitrator's decision. The requirement for voluntary agreement can be met by an arbitration clause where both parties agree at the outset that should there be a disagreement, arbitration rather than the courts should be used to settle the matter. One could say that anyone using Wikipedia has signed up to an arbitration clause - I'm not sure though that most editors are even aware of Arbcom's existence though, unless they get hauled before it.
I don't therefore think that sitting in judgement is different to arbitration. ACAS arbitrators try to get agreement between the parties, but will come down one way or the others if the parties cannot compromise. Arbitrators usually cannot create penalties - if there are penalties, this is usually specified in the contract (like penalty clauses for failure to deliver on time) and the arbitrator indicates in their judgement whether or not the penalty applies. Again, it could be said that the penalties for disrupting the project are written into the policies for editing the site, so arbitrators are only indicating whether a penalty applies.
ACAS makes another point - that arbitration is usually private. This is not consistent with the Wikipedia philosophy though, so arbitration sessions take place in public.
In real world arrangements arbitrators are only making a decision for the parties, who have agreed to abide by whatever the arbitrator comes up with. In the Wikipedia state, it is not clear whether the community (in whole or in parts) is a party to the arbitration. Parts of the community clearly thinks that it is, that the Wikipedia model means that at the end of the day, consensus is what matters, and Arbcom should enforce the community will. Other parts want the committee to make a decision "for them" without necessarily wanting to prescribe what that decision is.
You can see where the tension arises from. The key thing Arbcom was supposed to provide is a means of breaking intractable disputes by taking some action when the community cannot resolve the situation (because it's too complex, too many people are involved, or whatever reason). This means that Arbcom is making a decision for the community, not primarily for the parties concerned. In the real world, this is what governments are for - the community has said "govern us", and the government makes the hard decisions
The question I suppose is 'what does the community want'. It might not need an Arbitration committee any more, it might want to give it a different remit. It might say 'let's have a couple of WMF staffers deal with the paedos and the stalkers and the nutters, and do everything else in community forum'. It might not want to take the time to dig through a gazzillion diffs and say instead 'let's have the findings of fact but leave the sanctions up to the community'. It might say 'let's restrict sanctions to...topic bans...and let admins block the unruly'. There are a number of options available for discussion.
You cite real world experience with customer service and claim "years of experience… finding the appropriate response to the problem based on policy and experience". Is referring to editors as "anal retentive" an example of what your years of experience has brought you?
A:
In late May 2012, you were asked about your "clarification" of an arbitration remedy . You interpreted that remedy in a way that allowed the user in question to serially sock puppet. You have previously noted this user as one of your friends. Do you still stand behind this interpretation?
A:
How do you contrast your "clarification" with another comment , where you note a user creating sequential accounts, editing with overlap, and editing tendentiously? A number of people would say that comment could also describe your friend. Why does policy not apply when your friend is involved?
A:
On May 30 you were asked to recuse Your response was legalistic , implying that you would only recuse on case requests. Despite the interactions noted, you commented on, and did not recuse from, a RFAR case request in August 2012 concerning Raul. Why do your actions not constitute an abuse of position while involved?
A:
You have already been censured by the committee for admin action while involved . Do you intend to continue to act in cases and other situations in which you are involved?
A:
Well, I don't stand anywhere near your interpretation these events. I don't beat my wife either.
I know you've had a longstanding dispute with the editor behind the Davenbelle/Jack Merridew/Br'er Rabbit account and you disagreed with the Arbcom majority decision to allow him back provided he edited from only one account at a time. You could say you were right, given that he has now been blocked for socking. But what is the point of asking me why I "clarified" the remedy when what I did was say what had been agreed (I think you'd have noticed if I hadn't), or why I blocked somebody for doing something different, or why I didn't recuse on a different case to the non-existent one you had asked me to recuse on, or why you think I'm even slightly involved with Raul (even in a Wikipedia sense).
Why did you not address issues of your behavior, including civility and involvement, on point and directly under each question?
A:
Since you affirm below that the committee, when writing that remedy, did not intend that the user would be able to sock puppet, how did you as an arbitrator interpret the remedy to allow the user to switch back and forth between "alternate accounts"?
A:
Specifically, the remedy said:
"User:Barong is directed to edit solely from that account. Should Barong edit from another account or log out to edit in a deliberate attempt to violate this restriction, any uninvolved administrator may block Barong for a reasonable amount of time at their discretion."
You interpreted that remedy
"Yes, he is allowed to edit from one account at a time. No, that doesn't prevent him from changing account on a weekly basis if he likes."
Thus, the remedy was interpreted by you to mean the user may continue to use multiple undisclosed accounts, and may switch back and forth among them frequently, apparently so long as the user did not edit from more than one account "at a time". What does "at a time" mean? Your "interpretation" seems so contrary to the sense of the restriction that I asked:
"So if someone edits from account A, then account B, then account A, then account B, then account C, then account A, and then account B, that's just editing from "a single account at any time"? Under the interpretation that a user can switch back and forth between accounts successively, what sort of editing would even be socking, let alone violate the so-called "restriction"?"
I never got a response to that. What is your response now, and how is your interpretation consistent with the restriction and common sense?
A: The editor to which you are referring was allowed by Arbcom (and not all Arbs agreed with this) to edit in the fashion that he edited in, up until the point where he was blocked for no longer editing in a fashion that was considered permissible. That is the actual facts in the case, from which it should be self-evident how the committee chose to interpret its own sanction. Why are you finding this so hard to understand? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is this so hard to understand, you ask? Because a remedy, passed by a majority of arbitrators, said a user may "edit solely from that account", and you say the arbcom did not intend (by that remedy) that the user would be able to sock puppet. Later, the user was found to be editing from multiple undisclosed accounts, with interleaving edits, and was considered to be editing tendentiously (at least by some), something most people would term sock puppetry. Would you consider that sock puppetry? Nevertheless, when this behavior was pointed out to arbcom, you said and still say that remedy allows the user to switch accounts, which appears directly contrary to the wording "edit solely from that account". You have also neglected to clarify what you meant by "at a time" in the phrase "one account at a time". Now you say the user's actual editing was considered permissible by Arbcom under that remedy. This seems so obviously contradictory that it needs further explanation. How can editing normally considered to be sock puppetry be considered permissible under a remedy that you say did not intend that the user would be able to sock puppet? How can you explain this?
A: OK, in your head, clearly, this editor was allowed to continue editing because I cast an evil spell on the whole of Arbcom and they forgot what they had originally intended. I also turn people into frogs as a party trick. Meanwhile in the real world, as I am now saying for the last time as it is evident I am wasting the electronic equivalent of my breath here, the editor was allowed by Arbcom to continue editing in the manner in which he did edit, which means (since you seem to be unable to grasp the nuance here) that the committee *not just me* were, if not happy with the editor's behaviour, then at least tolerant of it. I understand that you do not agree with this stance by the committee, but your repeated attempts to make this my fault have departed the realm of the mundane and entered the kingdom of of fantasy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
If you think you are answering the question, you need to do a lot better job at explaining. The restriction in its literal sense, and as affirmed by you, was intended by the majority of the arbitration committee to not allow sock puppetry. Are you saying the majority of the arbitration committee agreed that very same remedy permitted tendentious editing from sock puppets? And that a remedy that said "don't do X" actually meant "you are permitted to to X"?
A:
What specifically are you claiming the committee considered editing in an impermissible fashion under this "restriction", and what specifically did the arbitration committee do when it happened?
Following up on a few of Gimmetoo's questions above:
You refused to recuse yourself in the Jack Merridrew case, yet you offered an interpretation of the remedy for your friend that allowed him to serially sockpuppet. Do you not feel that recusals are also warranted for remedy interpretations?
A: There wasn't a Jack Merridew case for me to recuse from. There was a point at which the committee was asked to offer an opinion on the remedy that had previously been enacted. I cannot see how the people who voted on a remedy can be asked to recuse from explaining what they meant by it.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question here: I want to know if the committee, when writing that remedy, intended that Jack should be able to sockpuppet, or if this is a case of retroactive CYA.
A: Well clearly not, as the editor behind the accounts was blocked for creating socks.
Question from Gerda Arendt
Civility: how do you feel about applying the principles that we use for BLPs (Biographies of living persons) also to editors: "a high degree of sensitivity", "attributed to a reliable, published source", "written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy", "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
That would certainly be an interesting way to take the "civility debate." This is an extension of the simpler concept that accusing someone of eg socking or edit warring without providing any evidence is a personal attack. It is important to remember that there is a human being behind that username, and the minute you start saying anything about that person in real life, there is definitely a sense in which it should have the same protection as a BLP. Whether the same should apply to an editor who has chosen to edit anonymously (either as an IP or just by not identifying themself) is an interesting question, but definitely when there is any prospect of it being personally identifying information, the fact that it is a wikipedia editor ought not to be a defence against saying something that would be ruled out by the BLP policy. There's a lot of speculation goes on (...obviously a Ruritanian Nationalist..., clearly in the pay of Rio Tinto Zinc...) that ought to be stopped, because there's nothing behind it but someone's opinion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Question from Wehwalt
Do you think there's an issue with people on Wikipedia being totally unable to drop the stick? That is, once the dog is dead, hauled away, disposed of, cremated, and its ashes scattered to the winds, they are still lashing out with the stick, seeking to do harm to anyone who didn't actually kick the dog at least three times? Personally, I see it as representative of the modern tendency that it's not enough to sack someone, you have to take away his pension, all moneys earned, the spouse, kids, house, and all but sackcloth and ashes.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I would venture that a perusal of the Bible would suggest that the tendency you describe isn't exactly modern:) There do seem to be a lot of parties who cannot get over some event that is traumatic to them, but I've seen a lot of them in real life as well - all local councils know people who will continue to pursue the same thing for 30 years. There is a sense in which justification depends on the circumstances. If one is Simon Wiesenthal, the world applauds. If you pester your local council for 10 years because they missed your bin, not so much. Interestingly, one would think that a customer complaints team would consist of people all determined to stand up for their rights, but the people I worked with were always inclined to let things drop, because they saw the damage it did to people who got obsessed.
With respect to the recent issue involving leaked messages on the mailing list, is there anything you wish you had done differently? --Mors Martell (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had just talked to my daughter - who has no interest in Wikipedia. I note your admiration for Friedrich Nietzsche but find the notion of superArbs who never speak to anybody to be a bit unnerving. She would have given completely unrelated advice, which would have helped me identify my preferred action. It's a trick that Sigmund Freud is alleged to have used, only he used to toss a coin. Seriously, I think burdening someone else with my problem was unfair, given the weight of shit that descended. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Questions from GabeMc
Questions: 1) Would you close an RfC that was happening as part of a formal mediation but wasn't to be closed by the mediator/s when you had 3 months previously participated in an AN/I discussion and !vote in which you supported the indef-block of an especially vocal party to the same dispute that resulted in said RfM and RfC? 2) Assuming this has happened inappropriately, what remedy would you suggest? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 04:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
A: Per WP:INVOLVED an admin (I'm assuming this is an admin, if not, some of the comments may not be so relevant) is not considered involved if they have acted only in an administrator capacity. So if this person had closed the block discussion, or indeed had blocked your vocal party, but offered no opinion on the underlying dispute, then I would have said that it was OK. If the admin had simply observed that the vocal party had breached some clear policy such as 3RR or WP:SOCK and this should result in a sanction, then I don't believe that would be a problem either. However, if the admin has at any point offered an opinion on the content dispute, whether when discussing the block or at any other time, they should consider themselves involved, and would I think be unwise to close an RfC with any level of contention to it, as someone is bound to bring the matter up even if the close is absolutely sound.
As to a remedy, if it is recent, one might ask for another party to close the RfC. This could be done by taking it back to WP:AN and asking for others to examine the close. You would need consensus that there was something iffy about the close, but I'm guessing that the RfC didn't come up with a crystal clear consensus, making more than one outcome a legitimate possibility. There is a risk that one might be accused of forum shopping. If only the spirit of WP:INVOLVED has been breached, but the close itself is without bias, then nothing more than a warning about the appearance of impropriety would be warranted for the closing party. If however it was determined that the RfC had been closed against consensus, then there would be grounds for examining the conduct of the closing party.
Does this answer your question? If not, please feel free to ask a supplementary question. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for you thoughtful response Elen! GabeMc(talk|contribs) 01:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Per: "an admin ... is not considered involved acted only in an administrator capacity". Would you consider participation in an AN/I discussion and !voting to block an editor "an administrator capacity" per se? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 01:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if simply confirming that the correct policies have been applied. "Bad block - editor stopped after warning" or "Good block - user made 10 reverts in 60 minutes including 4 after being warned about it" just refers to the policy, and as you can be blocked even if the information in the edits were 'right', makes no speculation about the value of the edits. "User has been disrupting this article with his weird views for some time now" could in my opinion overstep the mark, as it suggests that the admin has a view on what should and should not be in the article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I asked question in this section on Elen's talk page, and with her permission I am placing the questions and answers below. EdChem (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Elen, I'm still trying to decide whether to support you in the ArbCom election, and wonder if I might ask a couple of questions? EdChem (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
If you are re-elected, what action(s) do you plan to take on the issue of inappropriate use of the mailing list by arbitrators?
A: Shut the damn mailing list down as soon as ever it's possible. It is totally unsuitable as a medium for holding sensitive personal information, as was made clear two years ago when sensitive personal information ended up on Wikipedia Review. There are comments on some technical work done in this area over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Having got the truly confidential into a safer place, the list can carry the other traffic (voting calls, availability etc) without having the burden that the need to preserve everything as confidential carries.
What changes will you advocate for arbitration policy relating to mailing list misuse, confidentiality, and disclosure?
Firstly, require all outgoing Arbitrators to clear their email archives of any list traffic once unsubscribed from the lists (there are 3) because they no longer have a reason to possess it. One could request that ex-Arbs from past times do likewise if they have not already done so. No means of enforcing it of course, because all the emails go to private inboxes, but one can at least ask.
Secondly, as said above, separate out the sensitive information. This may need some agreed definitions - existing legal definitions such as the UK data protection act start from the position that the information allows you to identify the person, the same criterion as used in the WMF Privacy statement. However, I would rather think that the community would want a definition starting with information that would identify the editor on Wikipedia, given the amount of traffic from editors who do not wish to be identified with the information they want to provide us with.
Thirdly, make clear what you can expect to happen to your information. The current policy (WP:ARBPOL) says that everything is confidential and treated as 'appropriate'. However, at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Communications_and_privacy it tells editors that the committee might share your information with whoever it sees fit with or without informing you, and not to send it confidential information anyway, as confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. Not helpful
Rather, any policy should make clear that for example, personally identifying data is covered by the WMF Privacy policy, and a breach of this policy involving any WMF system (eg checkuser tool or this new crm if it comes off) will result in immediate loss of access to any WMF system containing p.i.d. The community will probably want information which identifies you as an editor, and which the committee has decided to accept as part of a private hearing, to be kept confidential with similar protections. On the other hand, allegations that the committee decides should not be dealt with by private hearing should be deleted off the system, not kept forever to haunt an editor who is completely unaware that User:FromMars, with whom she was in a content dispute, wrote to Arbcom saying that she was secretly employed by the FromVenus organisation to edit with multiple sock accounts. This is a basic privacy principle (or should be) - if Arbcom has told the reporting user to go file an SPI and they don't, it should delete it's record within a few months, not keep unsubstantiated allegations hanging around like the proverbial fart in a phonebox.
As to correspondence between committee members - assuming that confidential information about other people has been got into a safer environment, any mailing list may still contain confidential information about it's members included in conversation (birthdays, family details, phone number, new job or whatever). In fact, the safest thing might be to say the mailing list is only for that kind of stuff. Discussing cases should be in a separate location, arguing with each other or making the kind of statements that led to this in the first place should be onwiki or by personal email.
At the same time, most of the discussion on cases and motions should not have an expectation of privacy at all. Even if not held onwiki (the genuine difficulty here is that everyone and their dog chimes in and swamps the discussion), there should be an expectation that it can be disclosed upon request.
In the (admittedly unlikely) event that both you and JClemens are re-elected, how will you go about working together?
A: We would just have to, in the sure and certain knowledge that we completely disagree on several things. The committee can work with differing opinions - although part of the scope of discussion on cases and motions is to find a format which will achieve majority support, it is perfectly clear that it makes its decisions by majority vote, not consensus. I think it would be a mistake to expect it to be like a government with a three line whip.
Suppose another situation occurred in which an arbitrator posted inappropriately to the list on a topic where the community arguably has a right to know. I refer to a post where disclosure would not violate the privacy of any editor and where the comments made are inconsistent with an arbitrator carrying out her or his duties. How would you handle this situation?
A: I'll be honest, right now I'd probably just shut up about it :) In the future, there should not be a reason to put that kind of post on a list (or on a wiki, which seems to be one solution being discussed as I mentioned above) where most of the traffic consists of or is discussing personal information that should be treated as confidential. If a person did so, and another member of the committee was disturbed by it, they should be free to raise it with the person by personal email or onwiki without anyone yelling 'Leak!' or simply to ask for disclosure (see note above about discussion on cases and motions) It's what is in the information that makes it confidential, not where it was posted.
Relating to your recent actions, I am much more disturbed by your misleading your colleagues when asked about the leak than I am about seeking the counsel of a friend. Voting for an arbitrator involves trusting in his or her judgment and whilst I accept that you would not have disclosed personal confidential information, I am concerned that you were unwilling to be fully open about your actions. Please explain to me why I should vote in support of you continuing to serve on ArbCom.
A: Indeed, while I have said that I was trying to protect my confidante (who had assured me he had not sent the text of anything to anyone - and who I still think was only trying to do what he thought was best), I would anticipate a lot of voters deciding that my judgement is so completely shot to shit that I'm not fit to be an Arb. All I can say is it was the same motivation that has led many to criticise me for being way too lenient and over emotional. There are people behind these usernames, and a lot of the time they are trying to do what they think is best, it just doesn't work out. Arbcom is not the government. It's not there to make policy, rule on content, or 'guide the project' (which is what I do believe is what JClemens wanted to see - an Arbcom that would guide the project on civility). It is just there as the last stage of dispute resolution, to sort out those wrangles that have spilled over into intractable bad behaviour, deal with the odd private matter (mostly alleged paedophiles and stalkers) and to manage parts of the tool permission process on behalf of the WMF. I think I've done that fairly, and fairly well, and would do it fairly well again. There's a balance in many cases between protecting the editing community, who just want a quiet environment and would often favour a 'block the lot of 'em' policy, and being fair to editors who are not always the mendacious, pov pushing trolls the other side (who are always incivil, lying edit warriors) make them out to be.
In the end, it's up to the voter's conscience, opinion, or whatever one chooses to call it. There are a number of good candidates who would do a good job. I'd say pick the ones who take the job seriously as a means of helping good editors to keep editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Elen, I'd like to thank you for your thoughtful and informative responses. I would like to ask one follow up, if I may. In response to my first question, you advocate closing down the present mailing list as it is unsuited to handling genuinely confidential information - which I think is an excellent idea, but it wasn't the intent of my question. So, suppose the truly confidential material is moved to a secure storage medium. I presume there would still need to be some off-wiki communication channel for arbitrators. How would you like policy to handle the issue of inappropriate use of that channel by arbitrators? EdChem (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
A: Ah right. I would expect at that point that it wouldn't matter so much what they posted, because the expectation would be that anything that isn't personally identifying (schedule, job or family details etc) could be referred to elsewhere or requested for disclosure. Misuse is a problem where someone cannnot be called to any account because of list confidentiality. If something said on the list can be referred to elewhere, it both removes the kind of issue that came up here, and might make members less likely to post things that they are not prepared to say openly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Additional question from GabeMc
Question: Why did you skip over my above question? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 05:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
A: Apologies, missed it. Have answered now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy to take part, just not got round to it yet. (I've sat down intending to start at least twice and got distracted) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:
on a related note, a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
Answering both together, I think your essay covers it. Choose the minimum sanction necessary to ensure that other good faith editors can keep contributing. Sometimes just a strongly worded warning is enough. A site ban should only be considered where the editor has had not only previous warnings but previous blocks, and cannot stick to any restriction or lesser sanction, or just causes disruption wherever they go. Blocks of indefinite length can be useful for more serious issues, when accompanied by counselling in the block notice, as the editor then is forced to engage with whatever is causing the problem. I've found that blocks of a fixed length of around a month can be very effective with younger editors - it probably sounds a bit patronising, but its like grounding them, it annoys them so much that they reconsider their behaviour.
to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is too...?)
do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
Answering both again, no I think it is nothing like imprisonment. It's more like an ASBO that stops you drinking in your favourite pub.
do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate is something to applaud or criticize?
I'll pass on that if you don't mind - don't think I'm sufficiently qualified to comment.
You often say something like this:"There are people behind these usernames, and a lot of the time they are trying to do what they think is best, it just doesn't work out". Have you ever forgotten about this during the year you've been an arbitrator? Have you ever treated a person, a human being like this person is just a username, and I mean either publicly on Wikipedia, or via email communications? Could you honestly say that as an arbitrator you have done nothing that could have hurt a person during this year? If elected, to what extent you prepare to go in order to treat people as human beings and not like usernames? Thanks. 67.169.11.52 (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure there are times when I have forgotten, and I'm absolutely sure I've done things that hurt people. Two reasons - first, I'm not a saint, so I lose my rag and make mistakes with the standard frequency of real live humans. I don't think I'm any worse by email than onwiki, so you'd get a fair idea from reading my contributions of where I've done something that upset another editor. I'm also sure that arbitration decisions hurt people. The purpose of Arbitration is to deal with the most contentious disputes. These disputes are so contentious because both sides are absolutely convinced they are right, or there's back history of bad blood, or whatever it is that makes people completely committed to their 'side'. So if it goes against them, they are bound to be hurt. If an appeal is turned down, the editor is bound to be upset. I'm sure Betacommand was devastated to be sitebanned.
I'm keen to move beyond looking at block logs (which I sometimes feel is an issue in discussions on the noticeboards), to avoid regarding inuendo and hearsay as evidence. To try to understand where the parties are coming from. And to try to identify if there are compromise outcomes that might keep everyone editing, albeit maybe under some kind of control to prevent the problem flaring up again. But I have to say as well that sometimes, to enable others to edit, the committee has to stop someone from editing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your responses. I have two more questions please:
1. I state: "all community ban discussions are meaningless, if for nothing else, then simply because less that one percent of the members of the community are taking part in these discussions."
I state: "many community ban discussions look more like a lynching especially, when comments and votes by such racist as user Tarc are taking into account."
Do you agree with my statements? If "no", please explain why "no". If "yes", will you as an arbitrator try to stop that lynching?
2.In this thread user Rich Farmbrough writes:"This idea that Wikipedia is not "Real Life" is fallacious. I have had at lest two editors contacting me saying that they were suffering ill health because of abuse on Wikipedia, and two who have felt close to taking their own lives. In every case but one administrators (individuals, not as a cadre) were responsible. You have to remember our editor demographic corresponds very closely to the suicide demographic. It is only a matter of time before "Wikipedia editor takes own life" is a headline, and I just hope that when that evil day happens none of us have anything to reproach ourselves with. "
I believe Rich has a point. I mean it is doubtful that one of anonymous users will commit suicide, but I could easily see an editor who edits under his real name committing suicide because of abuse he has sustained on Wikipedia.
Could you please tell me, if you are concerned that because sometimes you forget that there is a real human being behind a username this person could possibly hurt himself?
I think we're done here. I suggest you retract the personal attack in your first statement (or find some better evidence to support your claim). Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I do too. Now I know what I needed to know. Thanks!
There's clearly a lot of conversation gone on prior to the post you refer to, in which (among other things) one party accuses the other of being a Nigerian (as in the Nigerian scam). That might also be construed as racist, although it doesn't appear to have been meant that way. I think Tarc's use of the word 'Nigger' qualifies as using racist language - I wouldn't disagree with that, but I haven't particularly seen evidence that he is racist - which is a mindset. If he'd said it on Wikipedia in front of me I'd probably have blocked him for the use of the term in what appears to be hate speech, but I find I need more evidence before accusing someone of being of a particular mindset. I tend to be wary of throwing 'you're a fooist' comments around - life is often not that simple. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Add - it's like the John Terry case. He was prosecuted but not convicted because the beak was not convinced of the intent. But the FA disciplined him just for using the words, because the words are banned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
John Terry isn't part of the Wikipedia community, but he is part of the football community. His mouthing off in that manner had a great deal of significance both for fellow players and for fans. The FA is very well aware that one end of the spectrum is a high profile player using racist language, and the other end is black fans getting the shit kicked out of them. Hence the restriction on words, because the words alone have the power to kick off an incident (and indeed did).
As for your other point, the concern about community sanctions has always been that they can be made by very small groups. When every other editor in the field, from all walks of life, thinks that you are very disruptive and can point to lots of evidence, then although I can understand that it might feel like a lynch mob, I think you have to face up to your own responsibility. However, sometimes you can see debates polarising on particular lines, and pressure to close discussions with low numbers of contributors before the 'other faction' gets online. One of the reasons Arbcom retains WP:BASC is to provide a check against out of process community sanctions, something that it does need to be vigilant about, and be prepared to go back to the community when appropriate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
You've changed your opinion on the community rather drastically, but when I say "lynching" I mean not only number of users who participate in such discussions, I also mean that, if during that ban discussion a discussed editor is blocked even with the talk page access removed, "lynching" is the only correct word to describe what is done to that absolutely defenseless person. When I say "lynching" I also mean that in most situation there's no need for community bans. If an editor is blocked already, blocked by ArbCom, what danger he could pose to Wikipedia? Also one should take into account what kind of users are supporting these bans. Some of them are involved with the discussed editors, others are the most abusive administrators, and the third, I'll let you to form your own opinion about them. So, yes, in most situations the community ban discussions are nothing short of a lynching, and users who see it and keep silent are almost as guilty as the lynchers themselves.
OK, Elen, I appreciate the time you spent responding my questions. I wish you a Happy Holidays and I wish you never to do/say anything that could "tip someone over the edge". 67.169.11.52 (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
In response to your other point, I was very concerned for Rich when Rich said that. It's a very forlorn thing to say. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, another editor also talks about suicide in their post, and I am sure there are more. So there's a reason to be concerned.67.169.11.52 (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
And it's not always possible to tell what might tip someone over the edge. Look at the recent case with the nurse and the hoax call. The Aussie DJ's were out of order because there was a reasonable expectation that their hoax would cause some poor soul to be disciplined, but they couldn't have expected that. Many years ago, a project I was working on hired a consultant to do a piece of work. He was late delivering it, we couldn't get in contact with him, and left a fairly firmly worded message. The next thing we heard was he'd taken his own life. Now clearly it wasn't only this piece of work, or the deadline, or even the message that was the underlying reason a man would leave his two small children without a father.But we'd become part of it. I think it's safe to say that it made those of us involved more cautious, more inclined to first ask if there was any problem before putting the pressure on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Question: "The use of four letter words by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? Thanks.
A: Interesting thought. It doesn't bring everyone to the same level though - some people quite legitimately find strong language threatening or upsetting, and might be forced out of a conversation. It's taproom language, and many women won't drink in a footie pub (would the US term be 'sports bar'?) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I tend to agree, that the use of strong language seems to usually polarise and push the combatants further away from any possible middle ground. And, of course, new editors can never know that a particular editor may be "well known" to the community for using strong language. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)