My name is Drmies. I have been an editor since 2007, an admin since 2011. I have many edits, some of them useful. Wikipedia ought to be, primarily, a place for article creation and expansion, and I've tried to do my bit, having created over 1000 articles, with a couple hundred DYKs, and I co-edited 3 FAs and 6 GAs. I have two other mostly dormant accounts which ArbCom is aware of; I doubt that any of you have ever run into them (and they're much nicer than me).
Admins and arbs should enable editors to write. The ideal ArbCom is nearly invisible, and I would like for ArbCom to be considered less frequently as an option in dispute resolution. But this will only happen if editors are willing to work out their problems at a lower level (DR, AN, ANI); ArbCom should be a last resort, not a panacea. You may find me less likely than some others to accept a case.
When a case lands at ArbCom the process frequently seems complicated. I can’t promise to make it simpler, since I barely understand it, but I would like to try. It is cumbersome too: a recently started case could take weeks or months, when a consensus was forming elsewhere already; by the same token, two admins were recently desysopped in a matter of hours. I also hear complaints about ArbCom not being transparent enough, and I think we can do better. Individual Arbs I know are fine people, but the Com part seems to spoil it a bit. I'll try to do something about it, if only by communicating a bit more with the larger community about where we are in a given process.
Frequently I find myself occupying a middle position in an argument, seeing both sides, and I hope that in all my years I have been able to bring some sides together and, as an admin, reach fair and equitable solutions--the many RfCs I closed can testify to that. I do not believe the block tool is our best tool, and in all but the obvious cases we should talk before we block; that some call me an enabler, well, that does not really bother me. Blocking and banning are serious matters. I don't want ArbCom to be regarded as a death panel, and when ArbCom lays down the law, as sometimes it must, I want more consideration for the spirit and less for the letter of the law.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2015 candidate:
Drmies
|
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}
I welcome more professional contributions since it makes us look good, it's as simple as that. We would be crazy to turn down editors who have expertise, who have access to the full-custom databases, who can turn classes of students into armies of article writers. As for conduct, well, apparently we're not doing so good, or at least so I'm told, so those new editors, one would assume, couldn't make us worse.
Seriously, if those new professionals and academics were to come in here, of course that might change the culture--it might make for more conversations about content and less about other stuff. But mind you, if Wikipedia editors are hip and countercultural, we still have no reason to assume that academics aren't. Most of my colleagues are pretty hip--they're into Transatlantic literature and ecology and Twitter as an educational method and Open Source publishing and bringing Hispanic literature into the Early American syllabus, and I'm at a tiny school. Besides, I haven't really seen many problems that professionals and academics have with the existing culture (I know quite a lot of them; there's more than you might think), alarming sounds to the contrary notwithstanding. The biggest culture difference between this encyclopedia and the normal workings of academia, as far as I'm concerned is the writing: encyclopedic vs. argumentative. Being an academic and hearing you can't do OR here on a topic you know so well and have studied for years is like...like...well, like a really weird thing. So, to end this rather long expose, this is a win-win situation. Except maybe for monster trucks and rassling and all those other totally white and geeky US things that so dominate Wikipedia.
So, I'm trying to encourage academics to engage with Wikipedia. If you suspect one of the academics I persuade to edit of being a sock, or if you take offence at something she says, is there any chance you'll treat her to a similar display of frat-boy sexualised derision? I think I can infer your answer from your answer to Lynn (basically, she had it coming because she had offended you), but I'd appreciate it if you could spell it out.
So. You're asking me if I would respond like someone else did to a suspicion made by yet another editor; the answer is no, of course not. I'll be happy to add that I've worked with many an academic on this site.
Another couple of questions: Is there a gender gap on Wikipedia, and, if so, does the aggressive, often insulting, often sexualised discourse here contribute to it? Thanks for your patience. I know I'm being blunt but I hope you appreciate where I'm coming from, and agree this at least needs airing.
Finally, of course there is a gender gap, in content as well as in the community of editors. I refuse to accept, however, that its main cause is some British guy using a bad word or some IP making a tasteless remark on my talk page. (I know a lot of IPs; I still don't know who this one is.) If I had to guess, I would say that the Internet's whitemalegeekness is more to blame than our supposed culture. I'm not a member of many online communities, and of all the ones I know, Wikipedia is the friendliest and open one, even given its gender disparity. But in my daily editing I run into so many female and transgender editors that I'm sometimes surprised when I see the stats; my personal experience on Wikipedia is pleasantly mixed. But I think it's significant that I hear so few complaints about racial diversity: Wikipedia is more overwhelmingly white than it is overwhelmingly male, at least in my experience. Drmies ( talk) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
So much of my experience is from real life, from working in an environment that's quite diverse in terms of gender and sexual orientation, from working with LGBT students, and from studying and teaching women's literature. And, of course, from raising three kids in as exciting and gender-neutral a way as I can manage. Let me add, by the way, that anyone is welcome to sign up for my class on Women in Medieval Literature, next semester, where we will study misogyny from biblical roots to the church fathers and popular poetry, and arguments against misogyny made by churchmen as well as by writers such as Christine de Pizan. We'll also deal with the writings by female mystics along the way--the women long put down as just crazy womenfolk, who have fortunately been reclaimed for us by feminist scholars. If you can't make the class, at least read the basic anthology for the class, Blamires, Alcuin (1992). Woman Defamed and Woman Defended. Oxford: Oxford UP. ISBN 9780198710394.
If someone were to ask me if I thought I could fairly judge an editor whom I have known for a long time, I think the answer is yes, and if I decide that I can't, I'll recuse. Of course I assume that the editor's detractors would also think very carefully about their ability to judge objectively. But surely ArbCom is about more than one's opinion on one particular issue.
What I found most baffling, though, was the emergency desysop of Malik Shabazz, that's no secret. Malik says one wrong thing and makes one wrong administrative action, after suffering some severely racist baiting, and the bit is yanked. What should have happened? Conversation. That's all. I think we underestimate what it means for someone to be desysopped: it's a matter of some serious personal embarrassment, not to be taken lightly, and in the recent "emergency" desysops, the arbs should have really spent more time asking themselves if the admin in question was likely to repeat the offending administrative action. It's like blocking: if someone is not likely to repeat an offending edit, a block is punitive. But we hastily took his bit, and no one should have expected Malik to swallow his pride after we basically suggested to him that the name he was called was OK.
Thank you for stepping forward!
I'm not sure what you mean with "arbitration supervision", but I think what you suggest with "enforcement", and reject, is a more or less automatic block for any violation of any kind. I don't think ArbCom should be a good reason for a block. Anyway, in this kind of situation I always think one should talk first and maybe block later--if that block in any way helps anything. I'm probably rephrasing what Floq has said many times before in many situations.
This particular case was about one particular editor, but we need to remember that in general such ArbCom-sanctioned blocks are usually imposed on longtime editors, many of whom have contributed greatly to the project. Thus, to let them be done by one admin, when there can be considerable disagreement over the justice, the usefulness, and the severity of the block in a usually high-pressure environment, is...well, a lot to ask of the admin, and a lot to accept for the editor. I would like us to talk first and, maybe, discuss them either on AN or among the Arbs. In most cases there really isn't a rush, I think, to block.
I don't know, Anythingyouwant. Of course my lips are as sealed as they ought to be on sensitive matters. I have no doubt I'll be biting my tongue more than once, and I am equally sure that I will speak my mind as much as I think is appropriate. But ArbCom acting reprehensibly or unjustly, that's precisely what I am hoping to prevent.
Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. Many of these questions are sourced from actual cases, discussions, and problems over the past year. Enjoy!
One of the things we don't know ("we" meaning not Arbs) is how many of such complaints are filed, how much if any abuse has happened, etc. Another thing that I don't know is how such complaints relate to whatever the meta:Ombudsman commission receives. Can you tell I like the ombudsman idea?
Update: having read Sarah/SV's suggestions for ArbCom reform, I must say I'm leaning toward Arbs not automatically getting the CU tool. Personally I don't have much interest in it (or technical skills for it, maybe) and I am really not sure whether Arbs need it for the things they do. I'm in a state of flux here, not having realized before Arbs get CU automatically, and my thinking on this is not yet done.
In short, to ban someone from the project, that takes a lot of disruption, and it's a very unpleasant thing, a last resort. When it is done, it is to be done deliberately and thoughtfully, and that's the kind of thing that ArbCom should take its time for; as far as I can tell, they have not taken those big decisions lightly. Now, letting banned editors back in, that's another matter, and typically the viewing audience is not privy to that process, and it's something I want to learn more about and maybe tweak.
We have many worlds and Englishes and societies and cultures here on Wikipedia: we can't have one particular population set the standards for all. The tools you indicate are the admin's tools as well; ArbCom does the same thing, just by committee. Now, you didn't list one of the most important tools: conversation, the tool we should try first. Of course, by the time it gets to ArbCom we've passed a couple of stations already, and thus options are limited.
The best thing I think any committee can do is be as explicit as possible about what it expects from community members, without providing a list of words or expressions that are not to be used. But ArbCom also needs to make clear that it understands that not every violation is worthy of a block. For instance, we typically give latitude to blocked editors to "vent" on their own talk page, and we should continue to do so; we should also clearly contextualize violations by investigating whether someone was baited or not, for instance. Most of us do that, but it would be helpful if ArbCom, when it hands out a civility warning of sorts, more explicitly require that of administrators. Have you talked with the editor? Is a block the best solution? Are you sure they haven't stopped badmouthing someone already, making a block punitive? This is all common sense, as far as I am concerned. And while instances of incivility are not good, and patters are very discouraging, I think poor blocks are worse.
With admins there's a dual problem, as the current (or not current anymore) Neelix case indicates: block, desysop, or both? I advocated a desysop since I think that their behavior was totally unbecoming of an admin--but "unbecoming of an admin", which for me included that I couldn't trust someone not to be a sexist, does not equate to "unbecoming of an editor" (an editor's sexist judgment can not lead to a bad block, for instance, or prevent a good block). In other words, the behavior I thought should lead to a desysop was not the kind of behavior that should lead to a ban. Many disagreed, and many of those comments are perfectly understandable. All I can say is that Neelix's admin status was not a factor in my decision not to block, and you can read what I said on his talk page here and on Commons. I have to say though that I am trying to keep a straight face since every time I look at my deletion log, with hundreds of totally offensive redirects, the Old Adam in me rises and I'm tempted to throw that blockhammer.
In the case you mention, Wifione was sitebanned indefinitely, so the process worked, since that was the right thing to do. The only thing that bothers me is that (as in the Neelix case!) a self-requested desysop seems to prevent ArbCom from yanking it anyway. I think desysopping after an admin has given up has symbolic value, and is not a redundant redundancy, pace DeltaQuad.
Your questions are much better than any answer I can give. Yes, there is intransigence. This e-cig case, I have never looked at it--occasionally one hears about it, and every time I think a. is that still going on b. why? and c. what's the problem?
I have often felt that the higher-ups, by which I mean ArbCom as well as for instance the developers and the WMF don't do a lot to keep us peons in the loop. I am just not smart enough to figure out a better way (and I admit I do not read the Signpost regularly), and I am so much unaware of the inner workings of ArbCom that I don't rightly know what kind of information exists in which channels at which stage in the process. But I agree something should be done in the way of PR--meaning "press release" more than "public relations", I guess.
I'm all for collaboration and I'm all for clearing any backlogs, though I cannot promise you what I will do in a case which I really know nothing about. Believe me, though, I am a Calvinist when it comes to any backlogs, except that one on my own desk: I think my id is rebelling.
Finally, the language--yes. I'm a big fan of Bradspeak, but what we read all too often is neither Bradspeak nor English; frequently we seem to be caught in a legalistic format which dictates that kind of writing. As an English teacher, I am not in favor of it.
My talk page, once you look past all the naughty words, shows that I have tried on a number of occasions to mediate and bring editors together, and I wish I were better at it than I am. I get asked frequently to help figure those things out--I suppose I get asked because editors think that I can help, but I just don't know if they're right. But I try.
===Question from
Pldx1===
I'll do the best I can do, which also means communicating as clearly as possible, in understandable English--ArbCom as a whole needs to do this too, of course. H8ers are always gonna h8, and I can't win those for me, and I'll try to look the other way when they h8ing on me.
Over the years I've worked with a great many editors from all over the world, some of whom I strongly disagree with politically, for instance, or artistically. I've worked with gun nuts, with Republicans, with Yankees, with Germans--not a given for a pacifist left-wing Southern Dutchman. What we all share, I hope, is a desire to make this beautiful project better, and that's really what matters. So, apparently I can get along with a lot of different people, which is pretty cool, and there's a lot of cool people here that are fun to talk to, and the more we talk the less we fight.
Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on WP:OUTING. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.
I did not want to see the editor Neelix blocked immediately after their...issues came to light, and after they had stopped making these ridiculous redirects. So, yes, I felt that at that particular time a block would have been punitive--we block an editor because we want them to stop their disruption, not because it feels good, though this would have felt good. But there simply was no ongoing disruption. An investigation into their COIs, the walled gardens, etc. could have led to an indefinite block, but this was not a case where there was urgency: Neelix wasn't editing, besides a few remarks and later some token deletions, so it didn't have to be done overnight.
Contact unbecoming of an admin points at something else altogether: from an admin we expect judgment, common sense, knowledge of our guidelines and policies, an inkling of an idea of what the community does and does not find acceptable. Clearly, all those qualities were missing in this administrator, and so I wanted them desysopped. Not necessarily overnight, but desysopped.
My desired outcome would have been a little different than what we got. I would have wanted to see a somewhat calmer discussion on Neelix's behavior; this could have led to an indefinite block, but whether it would have or not, given the scrutiny Neelix wouldn't have had much of an opportunity to edit inappropriately. But what I wanted above all was for ArbCom to have continued the proceedings, which no doubt would have ended in ArbCom yanking the bit. In the end he got to resign, under a cloud of course, and the procedure was stopped--I think it was a good opportunity for ArbCom to make a statement on what was completely inappropriate behavior for an admin. In addition, it would have sent a strong signal that a. the redirects (I'm talking about the hundreds that I deleted) were revolting and sexist and fetishistic; b. we do not trust the judgment of admins who make those kinds of redirects. Admins may well have to decide on blocks and bans for sexists and those who abuse Wikipedia for their own fetishistic delights; this admin could not be trusted to uphold whatever standards we have. That is the opportunity we missed when the ArbCom proceeding was closed because Neelix had resigned, and that, I think, might have satisfied the community a bit since it would have shown justice, not the proper or convenient following of procedure.
I've been here for a few years now. "Let ArbCom handle it" has become something of a mantra in the last few years, it seems. If we allow ArbCom to handle so many cases, it would behoove us to not make the process too complicated--and by that I mean, for instance, what (evidence, diffs, accusations) gets to go where (Evidence, Workshop) at which time. We could start with a manual for ArbCom newbies, one which I certainly need to read.
Thank you for stepping forward; your commitment to serving the community is greatly appreciated.
Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.
Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
In general, I think I know pretty well when I can't be objective, and will have no problem recusing myself from voting on proposals where I think I can't be objective. And I know there are some strong opinions out there, but the fact that I frequently get it from both sides, so to speak, gives me some faith that I'm not anybody's fool. I may add that I don't get a lot of pressure exerted on me to act this way or that by other involved parties, and I think that's a good sign; also, I don't use IRC or email lists or any of those other less public means of communications, and stay relatively dramah-free.
Thank you for your time! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Riverstogo ( talk) 00:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Atsme 📞 📧 05:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an oversighter, but as an admin I have the revdel tool, which is almost as powerful in preserving privacy. I believe very strongly that revdel/oversight should be used if its use preserves someone's online and offline privacy, and I have in fact made such a revdel in the past. Admins (and arbs, of course) are given pretty powerful tools and we are trusted, one hopes, to have the judgment to employ those tools when necessary. In a case like yours, which for me is hypothetical since I don't think I know of it, when there is serious concern, IAR basically equates to common sense. I'm not one for rewriting everything to cover every situation; I do not think that that is feasible or possible, so I suppose I fall in the "interpretative" category. Having been the butt of some harassment myself, I take this very seriously, and disclosing gender is, for me, no different from disclosing other private information (you may know I'm a huge supporter of singular they, for instance). Neither plumbing nor orientation, broadly construed, is public unless it was disclosed.
My name is Drmies. I have been an editor since 2007, an admin since 2011. I have many edits, some of them useful. Wikipedia ought to be, primarily, a place for article creation and expansion, and I've tried to do my bit, having created over 1000 articles, with a couple hundred DYKs, and I co-edited 3 FAs and 6 GAs. I have two other mostly dormant accounts which ArbCom is aware of; I doubt that any of you have ever run into them (and they're much nicer than me).
Admins and arbs should enable editors to write. The ideal ArbCom is nearly invisible, and I would like for ArbCom to be considered less frequently as an option in dispute resolution. But this will only happen if editors are willing to work out their problems at a lower level (DR, AN, ANI); ArbCom should be a last resort, not a panacea. You may find me less likely than some others to accept a case.
When a case lands at ArbCom the process frequently seems complicated. I can’t promise to make it simpler, since I barely understand it, but I would like to try. It is cumbersome too: a recently started case could take weeks or months, when a consensus was forming elsewhere already; by the same token, two admins were recently desysopped in a matter of hours. I also hear complaints about ArbCom not being transparent enough, and I think we can do better. Individual Arbs I know are fine people, but the Com part seems to spoil it a bit. I'll try to do something about it, if only by communicating a bit more with the larger community about where we are in a given process.
Frequently I find myself occupying a middle position in an argument, seeing both sides, and I hope that in all my years I have been able to bring some sides together and, as an admin, reach fair and equitable solutions--the many RfCs I closed can testify to that. I do not believe the block tool is our best tool, and in all but the obvious cases we should talk before we block; that some call me an enabler, well, that does not really bother me. Blocking and banning are serious matters. I don't want ArbCom to be regarded as a death panel, and when ArbCom lays down the law, as sometimes it must, I want more consideration for the spirit and less for the letter of the law.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2015 candidate:
Drmies
|
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}
I welcome more professional contributions since it makes us look good, it's as simple as that. We would be crazy to turn down editors who have expertise, who have access to the full-custom databases, who can turn classes of students into armies of article writers. As for conduct, well, apparently we're not doing so good, or at least so I'm told, so those new editors, one would assume, couldn't make us worse.
Seriously, if those new professionals and academics were to come in here, of course that might change the culture--it might make for more conversations about content and less about other stuff. But mind you, if Wikipedia editors are hip and countercultural, we still have no reason to assume that academics aren't. Most of my colleagues are pretty hip--they're into Transatlantic literature and ecology and Twitter as an educational method and Open Source publishing and bringing Hispanic literature into the Early American syllabus, and I'm at a tiny school. Besides, I haven't really seen many problems that professionals and academics have with the existing culture (I know quite a lot of them; there's more than you might think), alarming sounds to the contrary notwithstanding. The biggest culture difference between this encyclopedia and the normal workings of academia, as far as I'm concerned is the writing: encyclopedic vs. argumentative. Being an academic and hearing you can't do OR here on a topic you know so well and have studied for years is like...like...well, like a really weird thing. So, to end this rather long expose, this is a win-win situation. Except maybe for monster trucks and rassling and all those other totally white and geeky US things that so dominate Wikipedia.
So, I'm trying to encourage academics to engage with Wikipedia. If you suspect one of the academics I persuade to edit of being a sock, or if you take offence at something she says, is there any chance you'll treat her to a similar display of frat-boy sexualised derision? I think I can infer your answer from your answer to Lynn (basically, she had it coming because she had offended you), but I'd appreciate it if you could spell it out.
So. You're asking me if I would respond like someone else did to a suspicion made by yet another editor; the answer is no, of course not. I'll be happy to add that I've worked with many an academic on this site.
Another couple of questions: Is there a gender gap on Wikipedia, and, if so, does the aggressive, often insulting, often sexualised discourse here contribute to it? Thanks for your patience. I know I'm being blunt but I hope you appreciate where I'm coming from, and agree this at least needs airing.
Finally, of course there is a gender gap, in content as well as in the community of editors. I refuse to accept, however, that its main cause is some British guy using a bad word or some IP making a tasteless remark on my talk page. (I know a lot of IPs; I still don't know who this one is.) If I had to guess, I would say that the Internet's whitemalegeekness is more to blame than our supposed culture. I'm not a member of many online communities, and of all the ones I know, Wikipedia is the friendliest and open one, even given its gender disparity. But in my daily editing I run into so many female and transgender editors that I'm sometimes surprised when I see the stats; my personal experience on Wikipedia is pleasantly mixed. But I think it's significant that I hear so few complaints about racial diversity: Wikipedia is more overwhelmingly white than it is overwhelmingly male, at least in my experience. Drmies ( talk) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
So much of my experience is from real life, from working in an environment that's quite diverse in terms of gender and sexual orientation, from working with LGBT students, and from studying and teaching women's literature. And, of course, from raising three kids in as exciting and gender-neutral a way as I can manage. Let me add, by the way, that anyone is welcome to sign up for my class on Women in Medieval Literature, next semester, where we will study misogyny from biblical roots to the church fathers and popular poetry, and arguments against misogyny made by churchmen as well as by writers such as Christine de Pizan. We'll also deal with the writings by female mystics along the way--the women long put down as just crazy womenfolk, who have fortunately been reclaimed for us by feminist scholars. If you can't make the class, at least read the basic anthology for the class, Blamires, Alcuin (1992). Woman Defamed and Woman Defended. Oxford: Oxford UP. ISBN 9780198710394.
If someone were to ask me if I thought I could fairly judge an editor whom I have known for a long time, I think the answer is yes, and if I decide that I can't, I'll recuse. Of course I assume that the editor's detractors would also think very carefully about their ability to judge objectively. But surely ArbCom is about more than one's opinion on one particular issue.
What I found most baffling, though, was the emergency desysop of Malik Shabazz, that's no secret. Malik says one wrong thing and makes one wrong administrative action, after suffering some severely racist baiting, and the bit is yanked. What should have happened? Conversation. That's all. I think we underestimate what it means for someone to be desysopped: it's a matter of some serious personal embarrassment, not to be taken lightly, and in the recent "emergency" desysops, the arbs should have really spent more time asking themselves if the admin in question was likely to repeat the offending administrative action. It's like blocking: if someone is not likely to repeat an offending edit, a block is punitive. But we hastily took his bit, and no one should have expected Malik to swallow his pride after we basically suggested to him that the name he was called was OK.
Thank you for stepping forward!
I'm not sure what you mean with "arbitration supervision", but I think what you suggest with "enforcement", and reject, is a more or less automatic block for any violation of any kind. I don't think ArbCom should be a good reason for a block. Anyway, in this kind of situation I always think one should talk first and maybe block later--if that block in any way helps anything. I'm probably rephrasing what Floq has said many times before in many situations.
This particular case was about one particular editor, but we need to remember that in general such ArbCom-sanctioned blocks are usually imposed on longtime editors, many of whom have contributed greatly to the project. Thus, to let them be done by one admin, when there can be considerable disagreement over the justice, the usefulness, and the severity of the block in a usually high-pressure environment, is...well, a lot to ask of the admin, and a lot to accept for the editor. I would like us to talk first and, maybe, discuss them either on AN or among the Arbs. In most cases there really isn't a rush, I think, to block.
I don't know, Anythingyouwant. Of course my lips are as sealed as they ought to be on sensitive matters. I have no doubt I'll be biting my tongue more than once, and I am equally sure that I will speak my mind as much as I think is appropriate. But ArbCom acting reprehensibly or unjustly, that's precisely what I am hoping to prevent.
Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. Many of these questions are sourced from actual cases, discussions, and problems over the past year. Enjoy!
One of the things we don't know ("we" meaning not Arbs) is how many of such complaints are filed, how much if any abuse has happened, etc. Another thing that I don't know is how such complaints relate to whatever the meta:Ombudsman commission receives. Can you tell I like the ombudsman idea?
Update: having read Sarah/SV's suggestions for ArbCom reform, I must say I'm leaning toward Arbs not automatically getting the CU tool. Personally I don't have much interest in it (or technical skills for it, maybe) and I am really not sure whether Arbs need it for the things they do. I'm in a state of flux here, not having realized before Arbs get CU automatically, and my thinking on this is not yet done.
In short, to ban someone from the project, that takes a lot of disruption, and it's a very unpleasant thing, a last resort. When it is done, it is to be done deliberately and thoughtfully, and that's the kind of thing that ArbCom should take its time for; as far as I can tell, they have not taken those big decisions lightly. Now, letting banned editors back in, that's another matter, and typically the viewing audience is not privy to that process, and it's something I want to learn more about and maybe tweak.
We have many worlds and Englishes and societies and cultures here on Wikipedia: we can't have one particular population set the standards for all. The tools you indicate are the admin's tools as well; ArbCom does the same thing, just by committee. Now, you didn't list one of the most important tools: conversation, the tool we should try first. Of course, by the time it gets to ArbCom we've passed a couple of stations already, and thus options are limited.
The best thing I think any committee can do is be as explicit as possible about what it expects from community members, without providing a list of words or expressions that are not to be used. But ArbCom also needs to make clear that it understands that not every violation is worthy of a block. For instance, we typically give latitude to blocked editors to "vent" on their own talk page, and we should continue to do so; we should also clearly contextualize violations by investigating whether someone was baited or not, for instance. Most of us do that, but it would be helpful if ArbCom, when it hands out a civility warning of sorts, more explicitly require that of administrators. Have you talked with the editor? Is a block the best solution? Are you sure they haven't stopped badmouthing someone already, making a block punitive? This is all common sense, as far as I am concerned. And while instances of incivility are not good, and patters are very discouraging, I think poor blocks are worse.
With admins there's a dual problem, as the current (or not current anymore) Neelix case indicates: block, desysop, or both? I advocated a desysop since I think that their behavior was totally unbecoming of an admin--but "unbecoming of an admin", which for me included that I couldn't trust someone not to be a sexist, does not equate to "unbecoming of an editor" (an editor's sexist judgment can not lead to a bad block, for instance, or prevent a good block). In other words, the behavior I thought should lead to a desysop was not the kind of behavior that should lead to a ban. Many disagreed, and many of those comments are perfectly understandable. All I can say is that Neelix's admin status was not a factor in my decision not to block, and you can read what I said on his talk page here and on Commons. I have to say though that I am trying to keep a straight face since every time I look at my deletion log, with hundreds of totally offensive redirects, the Old Adam in me rises and I'm tempted to throw that blockhammer.
In the case you mention, Wifione was sitebanned indefinitely, so the process worked, since that was the right thing to do. The only thing that bothers me is that (as in the Neelix case!) a self-requested desysop seems to prevent ArbCom from yanking it anyway. I think desysopping after an admin has given up has symbolic value, and is not a redundant redundancy, pace DeltaQuad.
Your questions are much better than any answer I can give. Yes, there is intransigence. This e-cig case, I have never looked at it--occasionally one hears about it, and every time I think a. is that still going on b. why? and c. what's the problem?
I have often felt that the higher-ups, by which I mean ArbCom as well as for instance the developers and the WMF don't do a lot to keep us peons in the loop. I am just not smart enough to figure out a better way (and I admit I do not read the Signpost regularly), and I am so much unaware of the inner workings of ArbCom that I don't rightly know what kind of information exists in which channels at which stage in the process. But I agree something should be done in the way of PR--meaning "press release" more than "public relations", I guess.
I'm all for collaboration and I'm all for clearing any backlogs, though I cannot promise you what I will do in a case which I really know nothing about. Believe me, though, I am a Calvinist when it comes to any backlogs, except that one on my own desk: I think my id is rebelling.
Finally, the language--yes. I'm a big fan of Bradspeak, but what we read all too often is neither Bradspeak nor English; frequently we seem to be caught in a legalistic format which dictates that kind of writing. As an English teacher, I am not in favor of it.
My talk page, once you look past all the naughty words, shows that I have tried on a number of occasions to mediate and bring editors together, and I wish I were better at it than I am. I get asked frequently to help figure those things out--I suppose I get asked because editors think that I can help, but I just don't know if they're right. But I try.
===Question from
Pldx1===
I'll do the best I can do, which also means communicating as clearly as possible, in understandable English--ArbCom as a whole needs to do this too, of course. H8ers are always gonna h8, and I can't win those for me, and I'll try to look the other way when they h8ing on me.
Over the years I've worked with a great many editors from all over the world, some of whom I strongly disagree with politically, for instance, or artistically. I've worked with gun nuts, with Republicans, with Yankees, with Germans--not a given for a pacifist left-wing Southern Dutchman. What we all share, I hope, is a desire to make this beautiful project better, and that's really what matters. So, apparently I can get along with a lot of different people, which is pretty cool, and there's a lot of cool people here that are fun to talk to, and the more we talk the less we fight.
Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on WP:OUTING. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.
I did not want to see the editor Neelix blocked immediately after their...issues came to light, and after they had stopped making these ridiculous redirects. So, yes, I felt that at that particular time a block would have been punitive--we block an editor because we want them to stop their disruption, not because it feels good, though this would have felt good. But there simply was no ongoing disruption. An investigation into their COIs, the walled gardens, etc. could have led to an indefinite block, but this was not a case where there was urgency: Neelix wasn't editing, besides a few remarks and later some token deletions, so it didn't have to be done overnight.
Contact unbecoming of an admin points at something else altogether: from an admin we expect judgment, common sense, knowledge of our guidelines and policies, an inkling of an idea of what the community does and does not find acceptable. Clearly, all those qualities were missing in this administrator, and so I wanted them desysopped. Not necessarily overnight, but desysopped.
My desired outcome would have been a little different than what we got. I would have wanted to see a somewhat calmer discussion on Neelix's behavior; this could have led to an indefinite block, but whether it would have or not, given the scrutiny Neelix wouldn't have had much of an opportunity to edit inappropriately. But what I wanted above all was for ArbCom to have continued the proceedings, which no doubt would have ended in ArbCom yanking the bit. In the end he got to resign, under a cloud of course, and the procedure was stopped--I think it was a good opportunity for ArbCom to make a statement on what was completely inappropriate behavior for an admin. In addition, it would have sent a strong signal that a. the redirects (I'm talking about the hundreds that I deleted) were revolting and sexist and fetishistic; b. we do not trust the judgment of admins who make those kinds of redirects. Admins may well have to decide on blocks and bans for sexists and those who abuse Wikipedia for their own fetishistic delights; this admin could not be trusted to uphold whatever standards we have. That is the opportunity we missed when the ArbCom proceeding was closed because Neelix had resigned, and that, I think, might have satisfied the community a bit since it would have shown justice, not the proper or convenient following of procedure.
I've been here for a few years now. "Let ArbCom handle it" has become something of a mantra in the last few years, it seems. If we allow ArbCom to handle so many cases, it would behoove us to not make the process too complicated--and by that I mean, for instance, what (evidence, diffs, accusations) gets to go where (Evidence, Workshop) at which time. We could start with a manual for ArbCom newbies, one which I certainly need to read.
Thank you for stepping forward; your commitment to serving the community is greatly appreciated.
Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.
Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
In general, I think I know pretty well when I can't be objective, and will have no problem recusing myself from voting on proposals where I think I can't be objective. And I know there are some strong opinions out there, but the fact that I frequently get it from both sides, so to speak, gives me some faith that I'm not anybody's fool. I may add that I don't get a lot of pressure exerted on me to act this way or that by other involved parties, and I think that's a good sign; also, I don't use IRC or email lists or any of those other less public means of communications, and stay relatively dramah-free.
Thank you for your time! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Riverstogo ( talk) 00:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Atsme 📞 📧 05:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an oversighter, but as an admin I have the revdel tool, which is almost as powerful in preserving privacy. I believe very strongly that revdel/oversight should be used if its use preserves someone's online and offline privacy, and I have in fact made such a revdel in the past. Admins (and arbs, of course) are given pretty powerful tools and we are trusted, one hopes, to have the judgment to employ those tools when necessary. In a case like yours, which for me is hypothetical since I don't think I know of it, when there is serious concern, IAR basically equates to common sense. I'm not one for rewriting everything to cover every situation; I do not think that that is feasible or possible, so I suppose I fall in the "interpretative" category. Having been the butt of some harassment myself, I take this very seriously, and disclosing gender is, for me, no different from disclosing other private information (you may know I'm a huge supporter of singular they, for instance). Neither plumbing nor orientation, broadly construed, is public unless it was disclosed.