Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Salvio giuliano/Questions

Moved comments from #Question from Begoon

I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, 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?

A:Well, speaking of "real-life" arbitral tribunals, they too, generally, make a determination regarding liability and, when appropriate, award damages; it's mediators who, on the other hand, try to help the parties to reach a compromise and, generally, do not get to make decisions. Granted, the situation on Wikipedia is rather different, but, mutatis mutandis, in the end, our Arbitration Committee is what its name suggests.

That said, I don't know if it is an arbitration body the community wants — there is a large part of the community which seems suspicious of all forms of authority —, but I know that, in certain cases, that's what it needs. By the time a controversy reaches ArbCom, all attempts by the community to solve it have failed and the various parties to the dispute have become so entrenched in their respective positions that a mediator, a person who tries to get the parties to reach a compromise, would be utterly useless. In these cases, a body which can say "you behaved disruptively and are, therefore, topic banned" and then enforce its decisions is needed.

Now, my personal opinion is that the current Arbitration Committee has been a tad too draconian — in most of the cases heard by the Arbitration Committee, someone has ended up sanctioned —, but this does not mean that we now have a GovCom or a body resembling a court of law. That's especially true when you consider that, most of the time, when ArbCom has to get involved, it means that at least someone has behaved so poorly that sanctions are indeed inevitable. Conversely, ArbCom has historically demonstrated a worrying incapability to police its own members...

Thank you. As I've said in following up with some of the other candidates, my question was poorly worded, and I'm impressed with the comprehensive answers that most candidates have nevertheless been able to give. It certainly shows that the majority of candidates are better at answering questions than I am at asking them . I'd like to just quickly follow up on a couple of the things you said, if I may. You say that by the time a case reaches arbcom, often sanctions are inevitable, and that point is well taken. Are there things the community can or should do (or change) to deal with things before they reach that point? I'm thinking particularly here of the RFC/U system, which I think some view as somewhat toothless, or "a waste of time". Finally, your last point, and here I feel a little guilty, because I have no idea how I would answer these questions myself: Is this because they shouldn't be tasked with policing themselves, or because they are bad at it? If the former, who should? If the latter, how can they be helped to become better at it? Begoon ^talk 05:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are some things I'd personally change in the way disputes are handled. The real problem is that, short of ArbCom and the community imposing a sanction, on Wikipedia all DR methods are voluntary and postulate that all involved editors a. are willing to discuss the issue in good faith, with the purpose of coming to a consensus and b. will then abide by said consensus. This allows for both filibustering and acts which void the solution that was reached. And both the community and ArbCom usually shy away from commenting on the content aspect of disputes, focusing only on behaviour. I admit I don't have well-formed ideas, unfortunately, but I'd really like it if the community adopted something along the lines of RfCs whose result is binding for a limited period of time and also found a way to emphasise the input of experts during content disputes. Though I have to admit that my perception is that, after the creation of WP:DRN, things have improved a bit.

Regarding the second issue, I'm afraid I have no answers, unfortunately. My opinion is that ArbCom is unable to police its own members — I don't think they are unwilling, as has been demonstrated recently, merely incapable. This inability has been shown multiple times: take, for instance, the time the archives of the private mailing list were leaked. We still don't know who was responsible. And, by the way, it was only thanks to that leak that those who read another site found out about another arb's old misbehaviour... So, ArbCom, despite its best intentions, is not able to sanction its member. But, also, in general, I think it's a bad idea for a given body to police itself: the idea is that nemo judex in causa sua. However, the alternative too has its cons; assuming the community could remove an Arbitrator, this power could be misused to threaten sitting Arbs, to get them to vote in a given way or to punish them for holding an unpopular opinion. And there would also be logistical problems: imagine the community is allowed to remove an Arb who has committed serious breaches of trust, in most cases, probably, the community would still rely on ArbCom to be informed of what happened...

I realise I have been rambling — and have provided very little of substance —; I am sorry...

Moved comments from #Questions from GabeMc

1. 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)} 04:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   A:This question is specific enough to lead me to believe that you have a particular event in mind — with which I am unfamiliar — and generic enough that it's actually impossible to provide a meaningful answer. So, regarding the first part of your answer, I'll say that it was probably a bad idea; it could have been worse (i.e. misuse/abuse of tools), but that would depend on the context. Regarding the second, on the other hand, you assume a. that the actions were inappropriate and b. that they were so inappropriate that they warranted a sanction; this part of the question is quite leading and I'd rather not answer.

I wasn't thinking about a sanction against anyone, I was wondering more about a review of the closure or a re-close. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise: it was a case of déformation professionnelle, I fear... Again, it depends really. If the closing admin reached a sensible and reasonable conclusion, then I don't think any further action is needed — even WP:INVOLVED has a similar caveat: in cases which are straightforward [...] the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. In general, however, any editor can ask the community at large to review a single admin's closure, if they think it does not reflect consensus and the community can always overturn it.