Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Carcharoth/Questions: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Question from SilkTork: expand slightly |
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) two typo corrections and link for Jagged 85 matter |
||
Line 29:
#:::'''A''': ArbCom should in general only take action if they are asked to do so, and even then they should put the request on hold or reject it as premature if community discussion is still continuing and is not yet deadlocked. ArbCom should certainly never step in uninvited. What this does mean, though, is that those within the editorial community that are aware of issues, and are able to identify when something is not being resolved, have to be more willing to file requests. Don't think that an earlier premature request means a later request will not be accepted. One of the more frustrating things as an arbitrator is seeing deadlocked situations not getting resolved because the community gives up and no-one bothers to file a request (in some cases, this may be because all those involved know they would likely face sanctions). Going back to the first part of the question, appeals of community discussions that result in sanctions should in most cases be initiated by the appellant, but in the vast majority of cases there would be little reason to overturn a community consensus unless it was clearly wrong and an injustice had been done. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 21:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
#::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.
#:::'''A''': I've looked through the motions listed at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions]] for 2012, and I think the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=476326420#Motion_.231 Racepacket motion] was handled well. What could have been a tricky situation was handled decisively and firmly, and re-reading it it is clear why the action taken was needed. Similarly, the motion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=500808863#Motion_to_remove_administrative_tools_from_User:Carnildo desysopped Carnildo] was handled well, and explained clearly. One
#: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?
Line 56:
#::'''A''': Yes, factionalism does exist. It can be of several sorts. It can be topic-related or interpersonal, and it can develop here on Wikipedia or be imported from outside. In topic areas, factions can develop as editors polarise around positions on the content of articles, either importing existing positions or taking sides in a dispute. If this is limited and resolves peacefully and everyone moves, that can be OK, but if the same groups keep appearing at article after article across a wide area, this can be damaging. Factions can also develop in process areas of the project if impressions of cliques form. Sometimes the only way to dispel that is to bring in new people and/or effect some sort of change. Factions can also develop around individual editors who have become the 'poster child' for some perennial issue. Such conflicts can have elements of interpersonal disputes and are in many ways harder to resolve (ultimately, resolution of interpersonal disputes occur when the editors involved manage to move on from whatever caused the dispute). ArbCom should definitely examine cases where factionalism is alleged, but should try and determine the underlying causes when considering the remedies. Topic bans or interaction bans can help disperse tension, but in some cases factions will reform involving new editors, so longer-term remedies may be needed. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 21:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
#: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?
#::'''A''': Yes to the editor retention question. Possibly to the shortage of editors question - it depends on whether you can adjust the figures to take account of the work done by anti-vandalism bots. More editors would be good, but you want to retain the good ones and encourage and help those willing to learn and develop
#'''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.
#:'''A''': Looking at the cases listed at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2012]], the ones I am at least partly familiar with, or commented on, were 'Civility enforcement', 'Rich Farmbrough', 'Perth' and 'Fae'. In 'Civility enforcement', I initially thought the decision to desysop Hawkeye7 was too harsh, but looking back on it I think that was in fact the right call there (though still borderline). I don't think the topic ban of Malleus Fatuorum from RFA talk pages was well thought out. It has the air of a compromise thrown in to get the case closed, and has proved to be more trouble than it was worth (there was a lot of subsequent arbitration actions that followed on from this case). The admonishments, I agree were needed. In the 'Rich Farmbrough' case, the process was rather tortuous, but the outcome is one that I think was justified. One good thing there is that ArbCom seem to have learnt from the Betacommand cases in how to handle bot and/or automation restrictions (or how it can be near-impossible to handle them). That case also had follow-on incidents, and I note that Rich Farmbrough retired earlier this month (see his talk page). That is not an outcome anyone would have wished to see. In the 'Perth' case, my objections to the way the arbitrators engaged with the parties (or rather failed to do so) are documented in the arbitration noticeboard archives (see [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 18|archive 18]]). That might seem like process for the sake of process, but I firmly believe that if ArbCom had talked to the parties more in that case, and ensured that the parties were engaged with what was going on, that the outcome might have been more productive. Finally, the 'Fae' case looked to have been handled well - though I was somewhat surprised to see the ban of Fae that eventually resulted, it was clear some sort of sanction was warranted. The other cases I'm not familiar enough with to comment, but the 'Timid guy ban appeal' did have the hallmarks of a watershed moment, with an administrator (Will Beback) desysopped and banned. It also looked to have laid down a clear demarcation of the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and Jimbo Wales, which is something that was needed. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 21:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Line 103:
====Question from [[User:Casliber]] ====
I've written some notes [[User:Casliber/ACE2012|here]] on arbitration. My question is about the next time the committee gets a complex dispute such as [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion|Abortion]] or [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change|Climate Change]], where arguments extend to misuse of sources as well as problematic behaviour. Do you see the role as strictly examining problematic behaviour or do you see the need to examine how antagonists are working within our content policies. If you don't see a role of examining how contributors are abiding by our content policies, how do you propose they do get examined? [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 00:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks for writing those notes, Casliber. Some interesting thoughts there. Resurrecting the Core Contest was an excellent idea and it's been great watching that develop. You are right that Wikipedia is at a crossroads. You may be interested in a user talk page comment I noticed the other day [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hestiaea&diff=523476693&oldid=523475889 here]. That talks about breadth and depth of coverage. Attaining deeper, more reliable coverage of certain topics is difficult and may ultimately not scale.<p> Turning back to your question, I agree entirely with what you say about the need to focus on content-related editorial conduct. It has always been within the remit of the editorial community and ArbCom to sanction editors who abuse the content policies. Those who misrepresent sources, or who show basic incompetencies to edit, and don't change their ways or improve their editing, absolutely should be topic- or site-banned where needed. The difficulty has always been to lay out the evidence for such misconduct in a clear and unambiguous way (sometimes such misconduct is very subtle and hard to identify). Where that can be done, it should be done and the appropriate sanctions applied. It should, by and large, be laid out by fellow editors and assessed by the community (I believe that was done in the
::It's certainly alot easier on broader subjects such as abortion and climate change or consensus names of the West Bank than on esoteric articles that receive little attention such as that. I can understand reluctance to have any findings based on source use with that case. Ideally we'd have folks interested in reviewing but we often don't. I must say I get more taken aback when broader case lack source-use related findings and are restricted solely to behaviour. I don't think that is tenable in the long term. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 00:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
:::I agree that long-term it is not tenable, but there is also the question of scale. Broad areas with deep-seated content-related conduct issues that are intractable, deadlocked, and acrimonious, and that the editorial community are unable to handle, should eventually find their way to arbitration (though mediation is another prior step), but the editorial community does need to find a way of sorting some of these situations at a level below arbitration. Not being on the committee after the end of this year, hopefully you may have a chance to make progress on that, either before such situations reach arbitration, or in helping to manage the issues following an arbitration case. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 12:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
| |||