Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Salvidrim!/Questions: Difference between revisions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from PeterTheFourth

2. This will largely be a retread of a question I asked that went unanswered during your prior self nomination. Answering a question from Gamaliel during the 2015 Arbitration Committee Elections, you wrote that your involvement in communities such as the subreddit WikiInAction did not construe an endorsement of their words and actions. A large figure and contributor of the harassment in WikiInAction is reddit user StukaLied, with such diamonds as calling editor DD2K a "little mincing sissy" and perpetually referring to former editor MarkBernstein only as 'Reichstag' because he believes MarkBernstein is Jewish. You gave editor Starke Hathaway a 'Defender of the Wiki' award because you believed they were StukaLied. Do you not believe that giving awards to a person is an endorsement of their words and actions, and if those words and actions are primarily notable for the harassment they contain it is thus an endorsement of harassment? PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   No, I do not believe that placing a tongue-in-cheek banner on a user talk page constitutes endorsement of off-wiki harassment (are you even serious?), although of course the fact I had misread a comment and wrongly identified the Wikipedia account was a stupid goof on my part and ruined the entire sarcastic point I was trying to make. However, I do not believe that anything other than "explicit endorsement of everything someone had said or done" can be construed as "endorsement of everything they've said or done"; merely speaking or engaging with someone does not constitute endorsement of the bad things they've done; I'm on WPO, on /r/WikiInAction, I speak with Kumioko/Reguyla regularly, I'm Facebook friends with banned users, it's doesn't mean I endorse anything specific.
   I also do not believe StukaLied's words and actions are "primarily notable for harassment" although it's sure as hall part of their regular modus operandi. An important point of context that you've failed to mention is the Mark was repeatedly accused of spinning trivial matters into huge point-proving arguments and perpetraing huge gestures, which is covered under the WP:REICHSTAG shortcut, which is where the first association of his name and the word were made; it was picked up and perpetuated by other parties afterwards and may or may not be targeted at the belief that Mark is Jewish, but that's speculation of someone's intention. I'm not defending nor endorsing StukaLied's, Mark's, nor anyone else's harassment of behaviour towards people they disagree with. However it is clear to me from Mark's actions here and elsewhere that he is very inflammatory and seeks so-called "drama" actively, so before pronouncing him a victim of harassment I'd point out he dishes it out at least as much as he receives it while the essence of his arguments isn't necessarily always wrong, his aggressive and sometimes inflammatory attitude makes it hard for most people to perceive him as a victim. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. What do you think about my suggestion let's stop group names? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   As with all such labelling of groups, I think people are free to describe themselves as whatever they want. I also think people are allowed to have an opinion on the description of what they perceive as a group of like-minded individuals, and whether they use terms such as "people who generally are against the inclusion of infoboxes" or labels like "infobox haters" is really just a lexical matter when the intent and meaning is the same; but if someone asks not to be described in a certain way (i.e. if you were to ask not to be described as an "infobox warrior"), it's courteous to avoid continuing calling you that. Of course, WP:NPA and all ("infobox fucktards" is never appropriate), but I wouldn't fault someone specifically for using terms such as "infobox haters" to describe others. It's not a insult, it's an opinion (it's what editor A thinks of editor B) and I have a hard time seeing it as "offensive". However, it does reveal a mentality of WP:BATTLEGROUND which itself can be a problem.
   On the broader issue of "should such groups labels even exist or be perpetuaed", I think trying to categorize and label people into defined groups is an issue of human nature, one that reaches way further than infoboxes or Wikipedia itself -- just look at the whole gender binary arguments that happen everywhere.
   Lastly, "what do I think of your suggestion": I think it once again demonstrates that I am correct in thinking of you as a kind soul who tries their best to brighten people's days. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question from /u/NVLibrarian

2. Let's start over with Wikipedia's real problems. For example, membership is shrinking, and a lot of the editors who say why they're leaving cite a toxic environment with lots of hostility. (Just last week an AE admin threatened an editor who'd mentioned suicide with a site ban if he accepted an offer to talk it out.)
   What do you see as your/ArbCom's role in dealing with this?
   A lot of the cases at ARCA in the past month have involved appeals to AE sanctions. How 'bout that? How do you feel about AE? /u/NVLibrarian 22:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

   First, I think the biggest solutions to shrinking membership don't fall with ArbCom -- outreach, and new editor retention, is mostly handled by chapters (local like WMNY or thematic like GLAM) and WMF itself. However, I do think that whenever ArbCom has to adjuciate a case, it should count amongst its chief concerns reaching a resolution that minimizes losing contributors. ArbCom also has a duty to proactively work with banned editors trying to return to the project to try and reach a point where they can be allowed to work again in some capacity. Not every banned editor is salvageable and it requires a good dose of effort and motivation from all parties but IMHO any editor who is even asking to return shows some measure of interest in the project and everything within ArbCom's power should be done to attempt to channel said energy into productive editing. This is why I have absolutely no regrets about stuff like unblocking a past sockmaster with strict conditions per WP:SO and seeing him re-banned hours afterwards -- I'd rather be proven wrong for giving someone a chance than not attempt at all. This is why I'll almost always support the return of willing banned editors (with strong conditions to re-ban if issues arise again), as well as the gradual withdrawal of active sanctions against any editor whose doing good work.
   WP:AE is a flawed process but I can't honestly say I've enough experience and time to discuss it to really come up with any solution right now. I've said it before, I'm not 100% comfortable with ArbCom making decisions and letting other admins enforce them, nor am I comfortable with empowering any admin to enforce ArbCom decisions. As with many things on Wikipedia, AE is supposed to mostly work based on consensus of responders but this consensus is necessarily flawed by the limited pool of people who actually frequent the noticeboard. I don't think the workload of ArbCom necessarily prohibits the committee from also handling enforcement of the remedies it creates, but that is not a decision that we should take without first having it discussed by the community, so my personal thoughts on it don't matter that much.
   Lastly, I will not directly comment on "last week's situation" you've highlighted in your parenthical, because it seems like a very serious allegation but you haven't provided the first trace of a link or diff and I have a nagging feeling that the wording of your allegation is carefully crafted to present the situation exactly how you want it to be perceived. OTOH, any threat of suicide, serious or not, needs to be immediately reported to WMF's emergency team (whom I don't necessarily trust 100% to go far enough w/r/t responding, but with limited means sometimes there's only so much that be done). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect

2. Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?

   Cases should be opened for conflicts the community has proved incapable of resolving by itself. Just because the community has hit a dead-end doesn't mean the Committee will have to start swinging its banhammer and any arbitrator who accepts a case after having already made up his mind to apply sanctions has failed in his duties of thoroughness and impartiality. Sometimes, just airing things out through the organized system that is an arbitration case is enough to push along resolution of some situations. And even when sanctions are deemed necessary, we should strive to impose the lesser sanction which still works, and not jump straight to throwing editors under the bus.

4. If an administrator has openly stated an aversion to an editor on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?

   I think there are very few people here who are impartial -- we're a relatively familiar community and most admins have interacted with most other admins or active editors. Of course, "openly stating an aversion" is just one of the clearer forms of evidence of impartiality. But everybody's got an opinion on everybody else and I don't necessarily see anything wrong or anormal with that.

6. a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, should the case be delayed to afford that editor sufficient time to address any issues raised?
   b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, should that person be afforded additional space for rebuttal?
   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?
   Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   a. Yes, editors remain volunteers who all lead real lives who should be more important than an online encyclopedia. Unless there is evidence of a pattern of avoidance of ArbCom cases, an editor going away (on a trip or just on wikiretirement) makes it useless to hold a case -- ArbCom cases held in secret or in absentia is something ArbCom is recurrently criticized on. Just put the case on hold, and when the user starts editing again (a week, month or year later) then start the case then and there.
   b. I've stated in the past my discomfort with hard word limits: "I understand that some people need structure, but I would much rather allow more words but require that longer details and diffs be collapsed under a clear summary, to allow both fast reading of the overall points and an in-depth analysis of all the details and diffs, without taking too much spatial real estate." That being said, assuming we continue with word limits for the time being, of course case subjects should be allowed to say more than evidence-presenters.
   c. This is a procedural point that merits discussion. I'm of two minds -- I'd like to allow a case party to respond to all accusations (even if the "clock" is expired), but I foresee the potential for such leeway to be gamed and argues upon endlessly so I'm not certain what exactly should be done.
   d. Arbitrators should be allowed, and even encouraged, to investigate things themselves and not rely solely on the evidence presented by participants!!! And if the Arbs think they find some evidence that is relevant to the case, of course they should present it. This isn't court and Arbs aren't judges -- this is arbitration and conflict-resolution. I'd much rather see an Arb present evidence on a case where they're active than see a case adjuciated based solely on the evidence presented which may present an inherent bias (negative evidence is naturally predominant). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Biblioworm

2. Consider the following ideas for reforming ArbCom:

   • Remove and redistribute tasks that are irrelevant to dispute resolution (such as functionary issues) and tasks that are perhaps too sensitive and stressful for anonymous, untrained volunteers (such as legal issues, privacy matters, off-wiki harassment, etc.)
   • Streamline ArbCom case procedures by:

   1. Requiring that, at the beginning of every case, ArbCom clearly state (in a question format), what issues they will address, and additionally require that ArbCom address only those issues in the final decision. A great problem right now is the tendency of cases to be chaotic and have little structure.
   2. Eliminating or tightly restricting the peanut galleries and focusing mostly on the actual case parties. The peanut galleries which show up at ArbCom cases are often the cause of much confusion, flamewars, and disruption (after all, people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted to just get up and start speaking—only the parties may speak).

   • Give first preference to topic bans (or even temporary blocks) over sitebans, unless the party in question clearly has broad behavioral problems that are not restricted to a particular topic area. There is a rather widespread perception that ArbCom is currently much too hasty in using the banhammer.
   • Mandate that all AE requests be left open for a minimum amount of time (let's just say 24 hours), to give the accused an opportunity to have their case heard by multiple administrators. Currently, any admin can instantly impose a unilateral and basically irreversible AE blocks, without letting any other admins consider the case. Obviously, this leaves the system rather wide open to abuse.
   • Make ArbCom more open by allowing ordinary users to propose motions, with the caveat that the motion will be considered dead and cannot be reconsidered if no arbitrator responds within a certain amount of time.

   Do you support these measures, and would you work to implement them if elected? If you do not support all of them, please specify which ones you do support.

   Thank you. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 21:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Of course, ArbCom's primary mandate should be to assist in resolving conflicts within the community where the community itself has proven unable to find resolution by itself. Stuff like CU-OS appointments could be handled by either bureaucrats or stewards. Appointments are already currently performed by Stewards upon ArbCom's recommendations, and I don't think shifting this from ArbCom fro Bureaucrats would be controversial, really. Reviewing functionary issues (block appeals, allegations of misuses, etc.) is already performed on the Functionary mailing list, and because individual Arbitrators are functionaries by definition, they're more than welcome to get involved, but I don't see it specifically as an ArbCom direct responsbility. If block appeals prove unsuccessful after the normal process (on-wiki > UTRS > functionaies), then I still think ArbCom has a crucial role to play as the "last resort" for appeals of indef-blocked users de facto banned by their failed appeals to the community.
   OTOH, WMF should always be the eventual handler of legal issues, privacy policy-related issues, and off-wiki harassement, etc. Although I don't personally think WMF always does a very good job at it. ArbCom's scope should remain limited to English Wikipedia. Of course, if a Wikipedia editor is proven to be engaged in off-wiki harassment (for example), ArbCom and/or the community can impose a well-justified ban of the user on English Wikipedia, but that's the extent of it, and stuff that goes beyond our project should always be referred to WMF.
   
   On streamlining:
   I'd be careful not to limit the process by trying to make it work in a one-size-fits-all format like "must be worded like a question", etc. but I do think ensuring a better focus on what issues we are attempting to resolve will avoid losing ourselves and the community in sprawling chaotic cases. Structure is important but a balance must be struck between structure and flexibility.
   Limiting comments for non-parties and uninvolved editors -- yes, yes, yes. This wraps back around to my earlier point that case parties should have more space (visual or word-wise) as they are the core of the issues we are trying to solve. Outside input can be good but should never overwhelm the voice of the those involved in the issue. Perhaps collapses, perhaps a sub-page, perhaps some other solution, I don't know, but the idea is certainly one I support.
   
   I've said it in earlier answers as well, but ArbCom (and admins in general) should always strive to impose the minimal sanction that still works, i.e. if a TBAN or IBAN can work, don't jump to a full ban. This is well-supported in Wikipedia's core pillars -- which also means we don't respond to IP vandalism with full-article-protection. Plus, I'm known to always AGF some WP:ROPE, so any TBAN can include a provision that it becomes a full-ban upon violation (immediately, or after escalation blocks, or whatever depending on the case)
   
   I've also talked above about my uneasiness with AE and empowering any admin to perform basically unrevertable actions, and I don't think a one-week minimum solves any of the issues I've outlined in my response to NVLibrarian above.
   
   Sure, I'd love to see the community introduce motions! Perhaps for a motion to require ArbCom to vote on in may need some general community support first though... I'm thinking maybe that by having it discussed on WP:AN first it may be refined and agreed upon. That being said, I'm not sure if any special rule or system really needs to be put in place -- if there is consensus on AN that a specific motion needs to be voted on by ArbCom, I think it'd be unreasonable for ArbCom to decline altogether, because after all we are meant to help enforce the community's will (and the policies they make). But clarifying that we have to respond to such AN-backed motions can't hurt and I'd be disappointed if there is pushback against the idea from Arbitrators.