 |
|
Adding questions for 2013 election edit
An arbitrator stated during a case I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions.
Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper?
Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions?
Editorial comment edit
Recent events lead me to suggest that the Arbitration Committee members should study Groupthink as it applies to that committee, and to examine their own acts and words compared to playground behaviour in elementary schools. Effective committees require diverse opinions, and the concept now that all should be in accord is quite contrary to logic. Note that "agreement with everyone else" is not, and would never be, a criterion I would suggest for any election at all. If anything, the recent events reinforce my recommendations below which were based on answers to questions posed, and not on anything else.
Summary edit
Based on answers or non-answers:
Support edit
- Coren - elected
- Jclemens
- Ks0stm
- Newyorkbrad - elected
- Pgallert
- Richwales
- Salvio Giuliano - elected
- Carcharoth - elected
- 4 of 8 supports were elected
Neutral edit
- David Fuchs
- Jc37
Oppose edit
- Beeblebrox
- Kww
- RegentsPark
- Worm That Turned - elected
- Keilana
- 1 of 7 opposes were elected
Also oppose
- YOLO
- Count Iblis
And
- All others who did not answer the questions posed in a timely manner. Some of the individuals are, I am sure, personally splendid, but I rather prefer tht questions generally posed, and answered by most candidates, ought not be ignored. I do not rank candidates by any criteria other than those stated in this page, and not on any mathematical formulae at all, nor on whether they are admins or not. I suggest that those who share my opinions on WP:BLP being highly important, that ArbCom ought not make U-turns, that factionalism does, indeed, exist on Wikipedia and ought to be dealt with, and that the Five Pillars either should be expunged or they should be used.
Abraham Lincoln said:
- I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! If it is not true let us tear it out! Let us stick to it then, let us stand firmly by it then.
We should do no less.
One of the absolute worst reasons for opposing anyone is He speaks his mind. Any committee which is comprised entirely of people who will not speak up is well nigh worthless. Wikipedia dang well needs people who speak up when they need to -- else we shall be like the bystanders in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington acting like they see a madman. If you read this, I welcome your responses on the talk page here.
Primary criterion edit
- Arbitration Committee members should, to the best of their ability, without any prejudgement or bias, uphold Wikipedia principles and policies in a consistent manner in all decisions
General question responses edit
(note that I personally feel any candidate who does not attempt to answer general questions to the best of their ability should be ruled out. Also that how one feels about any decision, past of future, should be of no effect in determining whether one feels a candidate meets the one criterion I present)
3e: 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?
- The idea that ArbCom can make U-turns from year to year, I find against any reasonable expectation for any quasi-judicial body in any organisation at all
3a (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? 3a (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?
- The committee should not "pick and choose" which policies "count" and which "do not count" - the policies are established by the Community, and abrogation of any policy can only be done by the Community, per ArbCom dicta in the past.
3a (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?
- There is no doubt that BLPs are the single area where the most real harm can be done to people. I have opined that it should, if anything, be extended to small identifiable groups even where individuals are not named. Clearly, I oppose anyone who would weaken WP:BLP as a matter of grave concern to the WMF in both the long term and short term
5b "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?
- This is the "Ostrich question" Note: The wikilink to "tag-team" was not as I proposed the question, if I recall correctly.
Beeblebrox:
Five Pillars: Each is "open to interpretation"
BLP: "Concern should be tempered by respect for our own sourcing policies" rather than strict use of WP:BLP
Past Cases: finds use of "stare decisis" to be "pretentious", ArbCom is as dynamic as any other part of it and should not be hamstrung by being beholden to the decisions of past committees
Factionalism: Feeling like you are on a particular side leads to a battleground mentality and that never leads to anything good in a project that is supposed to be based on collaboration opposes any "political party" that intends to create a faction within the Arbitration Committee itself
Carcharoth
Past cases: Clearly, as the project accumulates more history, some sort of balance has to be struck between codifying the more critical decisions that need to set a precedent, and allowing changes. I stand by my initial answer that it is the role of the editorial community to codify any precedents that are set by ArbCom
Five Pillars: Essays should not be used in findings
BLP: Issues that affect living people (BLP issues) can occur in any Wikipedia article (i.e. the problem is not limited just to BLP articles). The default position is to take a hardline stance on conduct issues around BLP editing, but this wasn't always the case. On Wikipedia there is always the risk that policy may get diluted over time. If that happens to the BLP policy, the correct place to try and win that argument is in policy discussions, not at ArbCom.
Factionalism: 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.
Coren
Five Pillars: the foundation of the project
BLP: This requires us to be responsible and to always err on the side of caution
Past Cases: Past decisions are not binding, but they are persuasive authority
Factionalism: In the meantime, we work at the symptoms and try to keep things under control with added scrutiny and empowering uninvolved administrators to keep the heat low
Count Iblis
No answers
David Fuchs
Five Pillars: it is always worth examining that framework in the context of our original and changing mission (comparing the DofI to the Constitution)
BLP: with great "Google juice" comes great responsibility.
Past Cases: we look at what worked and what didn't
Factionalism: I would say that the parties of cases are generally good at bringing to the Committee's attention the actions of all involved, and that tag-teaming behaviors usually reveal themselves easily; that sort of behavior can and should be considered in a decision.
Elen of the Roads
No answers yet
Guerrillero:
Past cases: Rarely should arbcom do a 180 and when they do they need to explain why this happened
Five pillars: No need to refer to Five Pillars in principles
BLP's have effect on other people, and even articles about dead people can have implications for the living.
Factionalism: No answer.
Jc37
Past cases: Yes. As advisory.
Five pillars: Policy pages in general are merely a display of common practice and/or previous consensus for easy reference.
BLP: In general, per existing policy/guidelines
Factionalism: I fully support that we should allow neutrally worded, friendly notices to other editors who may have shown interest in the topic under discussion in the past. But abuse of this can be a problem. And typically those who engage in such factionalism, are those who see discussion as a "majority vote". I think the best solution on the long term is to better educate editors about the consensus process.
Jclemens
Past cases: Previous decisions are referenced through reuse of principles and ArbCom's reasoning needs to reference the community's intervening updates to policies.
Five pillars: a social contract
BLP: BLP issues are a challenge for the entire community, not uniquely for ArbCom
Factionalism: When editors have an allegiance to a cause other than that of the encyclopedia itself, and that allegiance causes them to act against the best interest of the encyclopedia, we have a problem
Keilana:
Five Pillars: Prefer use of actual policy
BLP: violations of BLP should be taken quite seriously when weighing sanctions for disruptive editors.
Past cases: One of the things I really like about Wikipedia is that policy and its interpretation can be flexible and can change when the community wants or needs it to
Factionalism: I try to assume good faith when I see a group of people agreeing on something. Rarely, like in the Eastern European mailing list case, people who both agree on issues and socialize together can become a problem, and it's best to treat that individual group as the outlier they are and not make sweeping generalizations or remedies.
Ks0stm:
Past decisions are not binding but are precedents.
Appropriate to ban editors "working together" to game the system.
Five Pillars are better used as separate policies in decisions.
BLP: BLP policy already exists, and I see no reason why the committee could not use BLP policy in their principles, findings, and decisions
Kww:
Five Pillars are explanatory only.
BLP: nothing in our current policies should be construed as restricting the introduction of well-sourced material into biographies
Factionalism: Arbcom must look at the whole picture
Oppose straightjacket of past decisions.
Newyorkbrad
Five Pillars: useful essay dealing in generalities
BLP: The ArbCom has repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of compliance with the BLP policy
Past cases: no answer
Factionalism: it often is quite possible that two or more editors have the same views regarding an issue of article content or policy, and I think that is much more common than tag-teaming of a problematic nature
NuclearWarfare:
Past cases are only "persuasive case studies."
Factionalism: No answer
Five Pillars: No comment
BLP: No comment
PGallert:
Does not see Five Pillars as only an "essay" and regards civility as being a key issue
BLP: Legal issues abound and consensus can not be used to cause potential legal problems. Firther that "insulting" edits can occur on a wide range of articles.
Past cases are not "strictly binding" but the committee should be predictable in decisions.
Factionalism is related to POV pushing in general.
RegentsPark
Past cases: ArbCom neither sets policy nor does it rule on content so the question of precedent should not arise.
Five pillars: The problem, of course, is that the pillars are principles, and principles are notoriously hard to pin down
BLP: On the one hand, we have the encyclopedic goal of completeness but, on the other hand, we have real people or their descendants and families
Factionalism: no answer
Richwales:
If a case needs reference to a precise policy, use the policy, but the Five Pillars are certainly usable in decisions.
BLP cases can be complex: there is always a danger that the true culprit(s) may escape notice and attention may instead be focussed on the editor who was trying to uphold policy.
ArbCom cases should be indexed in a manner conducive to using the vast amount of prior deliberations. If a prior principle is discarded, that fact should be explained.
Extended comments on factionalism, with "banning" not being the first choice.
Salvio Giuliano
Past cases: So, in general, I favour a conservative approach to precedents, though I also support changing them, when it's reasonable.
Five pillars: In my opinion, ArbCom should generally refer to the various relevant policies, which are derived from those pillars
BLP: believe that this is the area where Wikipedia can do most damage and that, therefore, we should be particularly careful not to sully people's reputations
Factionalism: ArbCom should be careful not to confuse this with the case where users genuinely agree on something. When there is evidence of foul play, however, all editors involved should be sanctioned.
Timotheus Canens
Past cases: Strict adherence to precedent is neither necessary nor helpful in resolving disputes
Five pillars: Being a summary, however, it lacks much of the nuances found in the actual policy text and is in my view too simplistic to be used in the decisions of the Committee.
BLP: no answer
Factionalism: no answer
Worm That Turned:
Five Pillars is "too simplistic".
BLP: Many factors therefore come into play when dealing with these conduct issues, from the intentions of the parties, to the community view of the behaviour, to how parties are adhering to the relevant policies.
Current community opinion is higher value than any past cases.
Factionalism: A group of editors holding the same view need not be inherently problematic, people are likely to find each other if they hold similar viewpoints and we encourage editors these types of editors to work together in WikiProjects. The problem comes when the faction works together to an end which does not match the standards we require on Wikipedia. For example, if a faction is being used to push a point of view, it falls simply under my answer to part a) POV pushing is not acceptable.
YOLO Swag:
No answers.
Non-criteria edit
How a person voted in past decisions is of no concern. If all arbitrators were the same person, I find that to be far worse than the current system of having disparate views presented and discussed.
Not an administrator? One of the single worst arguments to be made. Being made an admin is not a clerical "laying on of hands" - Really! If the person meets the main criterion I set forth, that is all I look at. As a contract holder ofor a major ISP, I had over two hundred individuals act as "sysops" - from a world-renowned atheist, to a billionaire, to a teenage boy, to a major author, to an octogenarian. The sole requirement? That they make the place an inviting place for people to meet and post messages, and that they do so to the best of their ability. The criterion for someone to be an arbitrator is that they have the ability to be an arbitrator.
Current opposes and supports edit
I guess I should point out that "neutral" opinions are subject to how many actual candidates end up being in the fray ... 8 people will be elected, and if I only have 4 or 5 "strong support" opinions, then the neutral ones will get re-evaluated to fillthe slate. No opinions are based on personal opinions about any editors - only of the opinions given in response to the questions posed.
Oppose all who failed to give answers on all issues not otherwise listed below. (Provisional Oppose)
Oppose Kww for all answers. (Strong Oppose)
Support PGallert and Richwales for all answers (Strong Support)
Oppose Worm That Turned (Oppose)
Oppose Beebelebrox for the three answers he did give (Strong Oppose)
Oppose RegentsPark (Oppose)
Support for Coren. (Strong Support)
Support for Jclemens (Strong Support)
Neutral on Carcharoth (Neutral Support)
Support for Newyorkbrad (recalling Truman's desire for a "one-handed" advisor, NYB seems to have both hands) (Support)
Neutral support for Ks0stm (was hoping for stronger stance on BLP) (Neutral Support)
Neutral on David Fuchs (Neutral)
Neutral on Jc37 (Neutral)
Support Salvio Giuliano (Strong Support)
Oppose Keilana for all answers (Strong Oppose)
My bias edit
Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained.