Content deleted Content added
Courcelles (talk | contribs) m →Question from Peacemaker67: why did I use "simply" twice in ten words. None of this was simple! |
Courcelles (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
#{{ACE Question |
#{{ACE Question |
||
|Q=What is your stance on improving the transparency of ArbCom, and the idea of maintaining decorum and respect in mailing list discussions? |
|Q=What is your stance on improving the transparency of ArbCom, and the idea of maintaining decorum and respect in mailing list discussions? |
||
|A=The mailing lists are a place for coordination of tasks and for sober discussion of matters germane to the Committee (And of course, some socializing within the subscriber base). They are not for gossip, rumour, or other such things. THe level of conduct on the lists should be what one would expect in a collaborative setting, debate, sometimes intense, is welcome, but should be held in an atmosphere or respect for each other, the matter under discussion, and respect for non-subscribers who are mentioned. Name-calling and personal attacks have no place on the lists. The lists are private because they contain discussions that are sensitive in discussion of other's privacy frequently; also, they're mostly boring, as you yourself well know. Discussions like "who will draft?" and "Good lord, can we get on with posting this PD" are fairly frequent! As to transparency, I don't know why the clerks-l list isn't visible to everyone since it is used purely for coordinating on-wiki actions. For arbcom-l, further transparency or open publication of the contents is difficult due to the sensitive matters discussed, and while I have advocated for the creation of a public list in the past (and would still support such a thing), the possibility of arbs getting confused and sending sensitive information to the public list is a significant argument against it; we already have the occasional mistaken "reply-all" from the existing lists, and while no case I know of was particularly revealing of someone's private information, the potential for unintentional misuse is absolutely there. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 15:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC) }} |
|||
|A=}} |
|||
#{{ACE Question |
#{{ACE Question |
||
|Q= When, how and to what extent do you think any editor should be informed if they are being actively discussed by ArbCom in a matter that would immediately affect their future in this community? |
|Q= When, how and to what extent do you think any editor should be informed if they are being actively discussed by ArbCom in a matter that would immediately affect their future in this community? |
Revision as of 15:06, 10 November 2018
Individual questions
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}
Questions from Hhkohh
- You are a 2014–15 Arbcom member, but why not attend Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016?
- In 2016 I was still virtually blind, I had sold my car, and let my license lapse, such was the edema in my corneas before my second round of surgeries. (I say this quite aside from a belief that people should take at least a year off between terms to recharge and refresh oneself. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Questions from Oshwah
- Other than having the adequate technical skills and knowledge required, and having the level of experience consistent with being granted the role(s), what other specific areas, aspects, skills, and/or traits would you look for and personally want to see in a candidate who is applying to be appointed as a CheckUser or Oversighter? What specific areas (outside of knowledge and skill, experience) in an otherwise-good candidate would cause you to halt, make a complete about-face, and oppose their candidacy for Checkuser or Oversighter if you were to see or find it?
- A CU or OS needs to possess excellent communication skills, have the ability to be discreet, and the judgment to know when not to use the tools (in the case of CU, at least, someone's personal information cannot be unseen. In the case of OS, I'm a big proponent of the theory of suppress first and then discuss on the list if you're not certain, since we can in recent years easily undo suppression actions.) Personally, I'm looking for judgment and temperament more than technical skills, what technical skills are needed for CU are fairly easy to teach; and I, personally, did not come to the role technically all that skilled. What is disqualifying to me? Chronic incivility, an inability to explain things you've done in a discreet manner, a "set in your ways" mentality that doesn't respond well to criticism or learn now ways to do things. I want people who can learn and grow more than people that show up with a bunch of edits and a masters in IT. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Question from Gerda Arendt
- Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here?
- Far be it from me to disagree with Opabinia on much of anything. . I think she's absolutely correct in the general case, and I hope you'll forgive me not using much internet chasing down the specifics of that exact ANI/RFARB. Civility isn't a game of the "word police", where the first person driven to cussing at someone else is the loser. Civility is a way of mind, a pattern of treating other Wikipedians with respect. It's not Arbcom's job to moderate mild incivility, and it isn't beneficial to slap templates and "civility warnings" on other established editors, either. It's all of our jobs to work together, and to foster a collaborative atmosphere. 20:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Question from Rschen7754
- You are married to a member of the WMF staff. What effects do you think this would have on your term, if elected? Rschen7754 05:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, you gave us some interesting discussion walking around Gran Canaria today. Actually, Kbrown (WMF) was hired during my last term on the Committee, so we already know what happens, and what is done differently. Not to sound flippant, but the difference was, and would be again, almost entirely on her side. Last time, she did not work with the enwp Arbcom during my term, letting the other members of the SuSa team take those duties (namely Kalliopie, at least at the time). The same would happen again, and given that there is plenty of SuSa work to go around on the team, even despite recent hires, there's still plenty for her to do without touching the Arbcom on enwp. On my end, the difference from her getting hired by the WMF was virtually non-existent. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Question from MONGO
- Looking at some your past decisions when formerly a member of the committee, you impress me as someone who had a throw the book at them approach to sanctions, even going so far as to be the most vocal member supporting draconian or stiffer penalties. Can you elaborate on why you have a history of demanding such sanctions even when other members of the committee did not concur with your opinions?--MONGO (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think a range of opinions from the various ends of this spectrum are good for a healthy committee. I think my record shows a healthy skepticism of misconduct, especially when such is done by administrators. I could point to a couple times I agree we were too harsh, but the funny thing is those are instances where the "strict" sanction was actually approved by vote. I don't think I've been to harsh in general, and sometimes a stiff sanction needs to be put on the table as a proverbial wake-up-call, even if it won't pass, given the near meaningless nature of admonishments. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Questions from 37.152.228.230
- Please accept my sympathy over your health problems. In respect of community bans policy states: via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute … Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response. You closed a discussion in which the editor's response was removed, the consensus consisted almost entirely of involved administrators, and no note was made of the fact that the participants were involved. Please explain your action. 37.152.228.230 (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've closed a lot of discussions, and quite a few ban discussions in my 8 years as a sysop, and I'm afraid I don't remember every one. Further, you've given me no real hints to go looking for the specific case; can you provide a link? Courcelles is travelling (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please see my questions to Robert McClenon. As the Committee is yet to reach a decision on this and in view of the statements by Jimbo and candidates here that the Committee/Community cannot and will not ban editors without giving them an opportunity to file evidence would you like to reverse your close (20:59, 23 July 2011)?37.152.228.230 (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- A close that has stood for over seven years without being overturned would be far outside of one admin's remit to change or overturn without discussion. That such admin may have made the original close is irrelevant, the closer of a discussion should absolutely not have any special superpower years down the road. And to be clear, I've still not looked at my original close form whatever discussion this was, I presume it was on one of AN or ANI, and the search feature sucks without something more to go on than a date and that I closed it. Courcelles (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Question from Alex Shih
- What is your stance on improving the transparency of ArbCom, and the idea of maintaining decorum and respect in mailing list discussions?
- The mailing lists are a place for coordination of tasks and for sober discussion of matters germane to the Committee (And of course, some socializing within the subscriber base). They are not for gossip, rumour, or other such things. THe level of conduct on the lists should be what one would expect in a collaborative setting, debate, sometimes intense, is welcome, but should be held in an atmosphere or respect for each other, the matter under discussion, and respect for non-subscribers who are mentioned. Name-calling and personal attacks have no place on the lists. The lists are private because they contain discussions that are sensitive in discussion of other's privacy frequently; also, they're mostly boring, as you yourself well know. Discussions like "who will draft?" and "Good lord, can we get on with posting this PD" are fairly frequent! As to transparency, I don't know why the clerks-l list isn't visible to everyone since it is used purely for coordinating on-wiki actions. For arbcom-l, further transparency or open publication of the contents is difficult due to the sensitive matters discussed, and while I have advocated for the creation of a public list in the past (and would still support such a thing), the possibility of arbs getting confused and sending sensitive information to the public list is a significant argument against it; we already have the occasional mistaken "reply-all" from the existing lists, and while no case I know of was particularly revealing of someone's private information, the potential for unintentional misuse is absolutely there. Courcelles (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- When, how and to what extent do you think any editor should be informed if they are being actively discussed by ArbCom in a matter that would immediately affect their future in this community?
- First, let me start out by saying there are, unfortunately, extremely rare cases where informing someone they are under such a discussion is a bad idea, though most of these are now handed by the WMF's Trust and Safety team rather than the Arbcom as they used to be, In the case of on and particularly off-wiki harassment of an editor, discussing it with the accused editor can easily lead to the campaign of harassment being increased in intensity by revealing the harassed as a "tattle-tell". In most other cases, the best time to inform someone they have been discussed is when an initial investigation into a matter has revealed there is substance to a complaint, that there is misconduct going on, and that such misconduct is Arbcom's business. Only if all three conditions are satisfied should someone be approached -- to do so on the mere presence of a complaint is meaningless due to the volume of complaints Arbcom receives; to do it in cases where there is no or minimal misconduct is not suitable, either, in cases of minor misconduct an individual arbitrator might be best served with a private word with the editor (though this should only be done with the consent of the entire committee), and if Arbcom decides it isn't a matter suitable for in camera discussion, the complainant should be directed to file it somewhere on-wiki; be that a community noticeboard, AE, or a request for the Committee to act at either ARCA or RFARB. If there is serious misconduct, if it is decided to handle it in camera, then it is time to ask the other editor for a response, with should always be done in such a manner to preserve the privacy of the complaining editor. Only then should a disposition of the matter be discussed. Editors should not be removed from the community without a chance to respond to the complaint, except in the rarest of rare cases. Courcelles (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Question from Peacemaker67
- Given the lack of attempts at dispute resolution that preceded it, what are your thoughts on the decision of ArbCom to take on the German War Effort case this last year?
- Personally, I think there was ample evidence to simply harassment-block the editor that ended up banned (doing so as an admin, appeal only to arbcom, block) and then declining to take up the case. Outside of the harassment that was going on, the entire mess would have been too close to a content dispute for my taste. (Arbcom could, alternatively, have taken a limited case to investigate the harassment, but not a broad-based WWII case.) Either way you want to handle that -- and it needed to be handled -- I think the arbcom of the day got stuck in what was an out-of-scope content issue. Courcelles (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Questions from Collect
- Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?
- Absolutely not. A case is just a fancy name for an in-depth investigation into an issue. Sometimes the best response is to either dismiss with no findings, or pass a few principles and findings of fact and move on. 13:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits?
- The arbitration committee is intentionally big enough that the perception of fairness is just as important as the letter of WP:INVOLVED, If an arb has been heavily involved in criticizing the edits or actions of another editor, they should likely recuse as an arb and provided evidence in the case instead. Courcelles (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually far from home for an extended period, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow fully reasoned responses to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"?
- For the first half, I would say that every party facing sanctions in a case deserves reasonable time to respond when needed. Lots of editors travel, and it isn't reasonable to expect one to drop everything in real life to respond to some criticism on a website. As to the second half, are we talking about a recused arbitrator who provided evidence? Or a arb/drafter who has kept evidence to themselves internally? If the first, a recused arb should be providing evidence in line with the standard schedule, so the close of evidence should be observed by them and the other parties have a natural chance to respond in the workshop. If you're referring to the second possibility, if a drafter has found something no one else has they wish to consider in the final decision, this would be one of the times for the drafter to use the workshop phase of the case to bring it before all parties (unless the evidence is dealing with private information, of course). Sometimes -- very rarely -- evidence has to be private, and providing it to anyone would breach the global privacy policy -- we can't just hand out CU results or oversighted edits just because they need to be used in a case, though as much information as can be given under global policy should be, as long as it can be done within policy and without compromising anyone's privacy. Courcelles (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)