While I filled out the last year of a tranche that lost some members due to attrition, I've dabbled in a bit of everything from the rather mundane administration of the mailing list or coordination of email responses and the Ban Appeals SubCommittee to drafting a case and even a few motions. Since I work from home, I'm usually available as things come up and can put in the occasional 30 hour week during complex cases - this time also means I'm able to interact a bit more on case pages with the editors who are involved. Some things this year have gone rather well, others, like the Climate Change case weren't as successful as we'd hoped and may have some background battles that still need addressing.
I'd like to see ArbCom continue to make changes and improve its processes over the next few years; with the large number of seats open this year, we have a real opportunity to bring in new ideas and perspectives. Whether it's something as simple as new ideas for restrictions or as significant as changes to the way cases are handled, the ability to change and meet more difficult challenges is going to be important.
Arbitration Committee Election 2019 candidate:
Shell Kinney
|
As far as personally and professionally, I worked for more than 15 years as a project manager and management consultant with a techie background. I understand how to get things organized, keep things moving and mediate tough issues. I also come from a long line of geeks where the family PC was a UNIX workstation for many years. When it comes to looking at checkuser data, I've got a bit of a leg up there and can explain those details in ways that others can understand. And finally, I own a lot of cats; when it comes to getting 18 folks moving in the same direction whether it's on a case or making a decision about mail responses, it is an awful lot like herding cats at times. :-) Shell babelfish 14:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Off-wiki, I tend to be a bit more bullet-proof. I'm quite open about who I am and what I do with the project. Michelle Kinney is my real name (and you're welcome to call me Shell, everyone else does) and I have no problem answering questions about other bits of my life if asked. I've not had any in-person attempts at contact (though I'd be happy to introduce people to my Rotties) and the few phone calls to my home and office have been met with varying degrees of hilarity. I'm lucky to have family and friends that support all of my volunteer work (not just for Wikipedia). Shell babelfish 14:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Behavior during the case itself can be a big factor. Editors who continue to argue and attack each other on case pages remind me of someone who can't help but steal, even with a uniformed police officer standing in front of them. It's usually an indication that they either don't realize what they're doing or don't care; in either case, sometimes a break from that area or that stressor is the best thing for them. Awareness is probably a big factor for me - someone's much more likely to address a problem if they know it's there.
As much as we want to welcome everyone, some people just don't find the project a good fit. It requires a high degree of collaboration and, maybe even more difficult, the ability to swallow our pride at times and drop an issue that others disagree with. We tend to give folks a lot of chances to acclimate themselves and go with the idea of least disruption (i.e. can we take away a small set of articles or a topic) first, but occasionally despite our (and I'm referring to the community here, rather than ArbCom) best attempts, editors are just unable to work within our structures and may cause significant disruption for those editors who can.
So I guess that while I'm likely to try creative things and would rather be able to help people back into a better spot, I recognize that there are times the rose-colored glasses need to come off. Shell babelfish 15:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom has stepped in an set up a process for community discussion in a handful of cases where constant behavior problems were a result of the dispute. I think it's important though that they then left the discussion and the management of it, to the community. In some of these intractable disputes, I think it would be great if the community could initiate more of these project-wide discussions in an attempt to finally resolve perennial content concerns one way or the other. Shell babelfish 16:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
This section is for individual questions asked to this specific candidate. Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below. The question should:
Election coordinators will either remove questions that are inconsistent with the guidelines or will contact the editor to ask for an amendment. Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time.
Please add the question under the line below using the following format:
I think we've got another case here that's an opportunity for growth. As we've recently discovered, there doesn't seem to be a point in our current article review processes where copyright issues are checked. Whether that's something that might be best as part of the reviews themselves (Good Articles, Peer Review, Featured Articles) or better as a separate process, is something that needs discussion. Whatever the case, I think it's clear that, as a community, we've missed the boat a bit here and need to make some changes to address this concern. In addition to any process changes, eduction is going to be a big part of resolving the problem to make sure that everyone who's editing is aware of these concerns and can help these kinds of things from creeping in from the ground up. Shell babelfish 17:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not certain what you're referring to when you say that the decision making wasn't transparent. The case you're asking about had the most discussion between participants and arbiters ever. When the participants expressed concerns that the first draft of the proposed decision didn't appropriately address the problem, the discussion led to a number of additional findings and remedies. More than ten archives of discussion were created during the proposed decision phase alone. If you do have some suggestions for improving transparency during cases in general, I'm always interested in hearing new ideas.
I often look back at cases, especially when the dispute continues to appear frequently at AE or elsewhere and wonder if we could have done something differently. In this case, both the complexity of the issues involved and real life interruptions caused long delays that were certainly frustrating for everyone participating. I was a bit surprised that the first draft of the proposed decision didn't contain any editor-specific findings or remedies; since the community had been unsuccessful in sorting out the area, a change of venue via discretionary sanctions seemed unlikely to resolve the issues. After the initial delays, there was a push to wrap-up the case - I'm not certain that the individual findings were as well rounded as they could have been. In general, I wonder if our usual process for handling cases really scales well to the larger cases we're seeing more often. Shell babelfish 06:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
One thing I noticed about BASC (and the committee in general) over the year is that the enthusiasm that starts the year out productively wanes a bit as the year goes on. About the time summer vacation hit, I had a more difficult time getting volunteers for the subcommittee and we haven't been operating on the formal structure since about that time. Since working on more of an ad-hoc basis actually sped up our response time for the majority of the cases and allows us to get more input since the entire committee sees the discussion on-list, I think that this less formal structure may be an improvement. Currently we're still working on the basis of a proposal and three supporting votes, with no opposes, in everything but the most obvious of cases (examples of obvious cases being a 24 hour block that would expire before we'd get an answer together or a banned user still actively using sockpuppets). If this continues to be a viable solution, I'm hoping that, by allowing everyone to pitch in when they can, it will keep the appeals moving well throughout the year and avoid that mid-year loss of momentum.
I drafted the Russavia-Biophys case and ended up adding a number of proposals in the Climate Change case toward the end. As far as the motions, I'd really have to go back and look - since those are usually in reference to a case where we need something formal or have some disagreement and need a vote, they really could be archived just about anywhere. The first case I drafted was more about disputes within a particular topic area than those particular editors. I ended up proposing some slightly different topic bans than the usual; rather than try to assign a weight to an editor's behavior to determine a topic ban length (which I found to be difficult and somewhat arbitrary), I went with the idea of indefinite bans. Similar to an indefinite block, they're meant to be a preventative measure that can be removed when there's evidence that the problem is resolved (rather than being forever). As of yet we haven't removed any of those bans, so it's difficult to say if the indefinite rather than length is going to be useful, but the topic area itself does seem to have gone back to normal editing so at least I think we correctly identified the underlying problems.
I'm not quite as optimistic about the Climate Change case. It was significantly more involved and the problems had spread much further. While I think the individual sanctions were a necessary improvement, I'm not certain we really hit the heart of the issue here. I also would have liked to clone about two more of me during those last few weeks since I'm not confident that individual sanctions were as well-rounded as they could have been. There were some cases pointed out on the proposed decision talk page (unfortunately very late in the process) that certainly fell within the behavior we were sanctioning. One of the other things that really stuck out for me was the way some editors were dreadfully treated over their participation in the topic area - there were many personal attacks and insinuations; some editors could expect friction (or worse) for every action they took or comment they made. I think this added significantly to the problems in the area and was so far out of line with expectations that it deserved at least a finding; however, since the idea didn't get traction when I mentioned it on the list, I left it out of the bits I added. I also worry about some of the incidents since the close of the case. At one extreme, if topic-banned editors continue to engage in the same disputes, we haven't resolved the problem, we've moved it elsewhere. On the other extreme, we're prohibiting editors from engaging in normal community discussions for fear they might mention the topic area and drama will start (this ties in with the hounding and poor treatment I mentioned). In this case, I think we may have gone too far towards that second extreme. Shell babelfish 08:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
While I filled out the last year of a tranche that lost some members due to attrition, I've dabbled in a bit of everything from the rather mundane administration of the mailing list or coordination of email responses and the Ban Appeals SubCommittee to drafting a case and even a few motions. Since I work from home, I'm usually available as things come up and can put in the occasional 30 hour week during complex cases - this time also means I'm able to interact a bit more on case pages with the editors who are involved. Some things this year have gone rather well, others, like the Climate Change case weren't as successful as we'd hoped and may have some background battles that still need addressing.
I'd like to see ArbCom continue to make changes and improve its processes over the next few years; with the large number of seats open this year, we have a real opportunity to bring in new ideas and perspectives. Whether it's something as simple as new ideas for restrictions or as significant as changes to the way cases are handled, the ability to change and meet more difficult challenges is going to be important.
Arbitration Committee Election 2019 candidate:
Shell Kinney
|
As far as personally and professionally, I worked for more than 15 years as a project manager and management consultant with a techie background. I understand how to get things organized, keep things moving and mediate tough issues. I also come from a long line of geeks where the family PC was a UNIX workstation for many years. When it comes to looking at checkuser data, I've got a bit of a leg up there and can explain those details in ways that others can understand. And finally, I own a lot of cats; when it comes to getting 18 folks moving in the same direction whether it's on a case or making a decision about mail responses, it is an awful lot like herding cats at times. :-) Shell babelfish 14:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Off-wiki, I tend to be a bit more bullet-proof. I'm quite open about who I am and what I do with the project. Michelle Kinney is my real name (and you're welcome to call me Shell, everyone else does) and I have no problem answering questions about other bits of my life if asked. I've not had any in-person attempts at contact (though I'd be happy to introduce people to my Rotties) and the few phone calls to my home and office have been met with varying degrees of hilarity. I'm lucky to have family and friends that support all of my volunteer work (not just for Wikipedia). Shell babelfish 14:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Behavior during the case itself can be a big factor. Editors who continue to argue and attack each other on case pages remind me of someone who can't help but steal, even with a uniformed police officer standing in front of them. It's usually an indication that they either don't realize what they're doing or don't care; in either case, sometimes a break from that area or that stressor is the best thing for them. Awareness is probably a big factor for me - someone's much more likely to address a problem if they know it's there.
As much as we want to welcome everyone, some people just don't find the project a good fit. It requires a high degree of collaboration and, maybe even more difficult, the ability to swallow our pride at times and drop an issue that others disagree with. We tend to give folks a lot of chances to acclimate themselves and go with the idea of least disruption (i.e. can we take away a small set of articles or a topic) first, but occasionally despite our (and I'm referring to the community here, rather than ArbCom) best attempts, editors are just unable to work within our structures and may cause significant disruption for those editors who can.
So I guess that while I'm likely to try creative things and would rather be able to help people back into a better spot, I recognize that there are times the rose-colored glasses need to come off. Shell babelfish 15:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom has stepped in an set up a process for community discussion in a handful of cases where constant behavior problems were a result of the dispute. I think it's important though that they then left the discussion and the management of it, to the community. In some of these intractable disputes, I think it would be great if the community could initiate more of these project-wide discussions in an attempt to finally resolve perennial content concerns one way or the other. Shell babelfish 16:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
This section is for individual questions asked to this specific candidate. Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below. The question should:
Election coordinators will either remove questions that are inconsistent with the guidelines or will contact the editor to ask for an amendment. Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time.
Please add the question under the line below using the following format:
I think we've got another case here that's an opportunity for growth. As we've recently discovered, there doesn't seem to be a point in our current article review processes where copyright issues are checked. Whether that's something that might be best as part of the reviews themselves (Good Articles, Peer Review, Featured Articles) or better as a separate process, is something that needs discussion. Whatever the case, I think it's clear that, as a community, we've missed the boat a bit here and need to make some changes to address this concern. In addition to any process changes, eduction is going to be a big part of resolving the problem to make sure that everyone who's editing is aware of these concerns and can help these kinds of things from creeping in from the ground up. Shell babelfish 17:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not certain what you're referring to when you say that the decision making wasn't transparent. The case you're asking about had the most discussion between participants and arbiters ever. When the participants expressed concerns that the first draft of the proposed decision didn't appropriately address the problem, the discussion led to a number of additional findings and remedies. More than ten archives of discussion were created during the proposed decision phase alone. If you do have some suggestions for improving transparency during cases in general, I'm always interested in hearing new ideas.
I often look back at cases, especially when the dispute continues to appear frequently at AE or elsewhere and wonder if we could have done something differently. In this case, both the complexity of the issues involved and real life interruptions caused long delays that were certainly frustrating for everyone participating. I was a bit surprised that the first draft of the proposed decision didn't contain any editor-specific findings or remedies; since the community had been unsuccessful in sorting out the area, a change of venue via discretionary sanctions seemed unlikely to resolve the issues. After the initial delays, there was a push to wrap-up the case - I'm not certain that the individual findings were as well rounded as they could have been. In general, I wonder if our usual process for handling cases really scales well to the larger cases we're seeing more often. Shell babelfish 06:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
One thing I noticed about BASC (and the committee in general) over the year is that the enthusiasm that starts the year out productively wanes a bit as the year goes on. About the time summer vacation hit, I had a more difficult time getting volunteers for the subcommittee and we haven't been operating on the formal structure since about that time. Since working on more of an ad-hoc basis actually sped up our response time for the majority of the cases and allows us to get more input since the entire committee sees the discussion on-list, I think that this less formal structure may be an improvement. Currently we're still working on the basis of a proposal and three supporting votes, with no opposes, in everything but the most obvious of cases (examples of obvious cases being a 24 hour block that would expire before we'd get an answer together or a banned user still actively using sockpuppets). If this continues to be a viable solution, I'm hoping that, by allowing everyone to pitch in when they can, it will keep the appeals moving well throughout the year and avoid that mid-year loss of momentum.
I drafted the Russavia-Biophys case and ended up adding a number of proposals in the Climate Change case toward the end. As far as the motions, I'd really have to go back and look - since those are usually in reference to a case where we need something formal or have some disagreement and need a vote, they really could be archived just about anywhere. The first case I drafted was more about disputes within a particular topic area than those particular editors. I ended up proposing some slightly different topic bans than the usual; rather than try to assign a weight to an editor's behavior to determine a topic ban length (which I found to be difficult and somewhat arbitrary), I went with the idea of indefinite bans. Similar to an indefinite block, they're meant to be a preventative measure that can be removed when there's evidence that the problem is resolved (rather than being forever). As of yet we haven't removed any of those bans, so it's difficult to say if the indefinite rather than length is going to be useful, but the topic area itself does seem to have gone back to normal editing so at least I think we correctly identified the underlying problems.
I'm not quite as optimistic about the Climate Change case. It was significantly more involved and the problems had spread much further. While I think the individual sanctions were a necessary improvement, I'm not certain we really hit the heart of the issue here. I also would have liked to clone about two more of me during those last few weeks since I'm not confident that individual sanctions were as well-rounded as they could have been. There were some cases pointed out on the proposed decision talk page (unfortunately very late in the process) that certainly fell within the behavior we were sanctioning. One of the other things that really stuck out for me was the way some editors were dreadfully treated over their participation in the topic area - there were many personal attacks and insinuations; some editors could expect friction (or worse) for every action they took or comment they made. I think this added significantly to the problems in the area and was so far out of line with expectations that it deserved at least a finding; however, since the idea didn't get traction when I mentioned it on the list, I left it out of the bits I added. I also worry about some of the incidents since the close of the case. At one extreme, if topic-banned editors continue to engage in the same disputes, we haven't resolved the problem, we've moved it elsewhere. On the other extreme, we're prohibiting editors from engaging in normal community discussions for fear they might mention the topic area and drama will start (this ties in with the hounding and poor treatment I mentioned). In this case, I think we may have gone too far towards that second extreme. Shell babelfish 08:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)