I am, with some trepidation, submitting a candidacy for the Arbitration Committee elections. I have been an editor here for nearly 15 years, an administrator for two of those, and an interface administrator for almost exactly a year. Like a few others, I did not intend to run this year and am personally doing so to help ensure a full-sized and effective committee going into the next term. Perhaps it is obvious from filing a candidacy, but I would be willing to serve on the committee even if other more-qualified candidates should run. I would bring my offline experience with systems design and engineering, so hopefully I'd be a collaborative committee member willing to consider creative solutions in the specific areas that ArbCom handles. As regards the future of ArbCom, I have been casually interested in devolving to the community some of the policy controls that ArbCom has put in place and which it has reserved to itself, so if there's time for a project, that might be one I would be interested in.
I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data. My alternative accounts are IznoBot, IznoRepeat, and IznoPublic.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2021 candidate:
Izno
|
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}
Note: Per
WP:ACERFC2020, there is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.
When I look at this question, I see the thorns of WP:FRAMBAN and how an organization should deal with claims of harassment, or the possibility of such should the evidence become public. Maybe that's an outlier case, but I think an answer to the question of how you verify the truthiness of some private evidence needs to consider that there may not be additional paths beyond (dis)trusting the submitter. Beyond that edge case, asking for corroboration from the other individuals in the evidence seems like a good next step, and possibly asking for intent or basis for actions taken as implicated in the evidence.
I assume this is essentially how ArbCom operates today, based on what I've seen on WT:ACN when actions have been taken based on private evidence.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your responses. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 20:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The data is interesting, but doesn't seem meaningful on a case-by-case basis. ArbCom is expected to be the last resort; my observation is that most of the cases it has accepted on the WP:ADMINCOND dimension have been appropriately accepted.
On an aside, that table might meaningfully be extended for cases where ADMINCOND was alleged and ArbCom declined to take the case, as well as the associated counts of votes for both acceptance and declining, as well as the vote for the sanctions (whether declined sanction or final) after an accepted case. That seems like better data to use to come to a meaningful conclusion on this point.
I applaud it as an effort to ensure a basic standard of decorum on Wikimedia projects. I am hopeful that it can/will be used as a tool for issues like those that have afflicted Croatian Wikipedia and as a tool to show new or smaller language wikis the behavior we generally expect from our members.
Conversely, I am leery of its potential applications to wikis with decent-if-not-perfect dispute resolution systems. Particularly, I read it when it was published and was worried that there were rules in it that English Wikipedia doesn't do a good job enforcing or which are today wedge issues, if even we have rules on certain points. (I haven't done a cross-check of the specifics to at least say which of the latter might exist, but I know that French Wikipedia has, as an example.)
"Should ArbCom care about what's said by uninvolved editors on the talk pages of a case or on the case request?"? I don't see harm in it, but if it's actually useful to the case, it probably deserves to be on the evidence or drafting pages (modulo evidence submitted at the request).
"Should ArbCom care about what's said by uninvolved editors on the case pages?"? Yes. I think it probably aids the committee's weighing of possible sanction for the parties to the case with respect to the interests of the larger community. And of course, ArbCom members themselves who are sufficiently involved recuse such that (ideally) ArbCom itself is a body uninvolved with the parties, so I'm not sure there's a way of getting around having uninvolved community members' thoughts leaning a direction on the case.
Let me know if I didn't answer the question completely (or at all).
Thank you for your answers Izno. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah, someone asked me that exact question in private almost immediately after I published it.
The first rule of interest would be the ratification rule itself; I like to think our systems for generating consensus has evolved past the point where we have a need for the rather arbitrary quorum we have today. The second area of interest might be the whole set of procedures and whether those should be subject solely to the arbitration committee's consensus. As I said though, this was a casual interest, and I think I've already added a link elsewhere on this page of ripe (defn #5) work that hasn't publicly moved in over a year regarding integrating the anti-harassment close.
WMF Banned User
|
---|
—
You have a below average length of service as an Administrator and not much participation in the so called drama board aspects of dispute resolution. Is there anything else in your experience that might convince people you have the requisite empathy for how hard it can often be to live up to the high ideals of ADMINCOND when confronted with the sort of disputes that characterises the ArbCom end of things? Horizon of Happy ( talk) 11:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
|
"volunteer"? No.
" conduct policies and expectations of administrators": Discord is not subject to all the same rules as Wikipedia (more strict in some and more lax in others), never mind that different groups will have different unobserved or undocumented rules ( norms). You may review the "official" rules at WP:Discord#Guidelines.
Access to privileged data requires at least the same level of privilege as the data is protected under. Discord as a service doesn't provide that for ArbCom data, so, no, not appropriate, even if I were to be discussing with another sufficiently-privileged user.
As for the latter question, I would in a case which pertains directly to that platform. I think I also would where the person is a significant contributor on that platform.
No to the first. Of course we'd like to keep everyone around contributing as net-positives, but stuff that ends up at ArbCom ends up at ArbCom because there is sustained unresolved disruption that needs to be dealt with that is impacting how the community is producing the encyclopedia or the encyclopedia itself.
As to the second, here's what I had to say a couple days ago about blocks and which I think is probably reasonable for ArbCom sanctions: "I usually weigh the breadth of the issue (1 to N pages), whether it was disruption in mainspace or elsewhere, which of the policies earned the user the block, how severe the policy violation was, and whether I think the user even will [ sic] take the opportunity to reform." If that falls under "type of editor and contribution" (especially the last I suppose?), then sure, it matters. If it doesn't, then probably not.
Thankyou for your answers! A7V2 ( talk) 04:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
"What is your stance on two-way IBANs that are imposed because of one-way harassment?" A two-way IBAN in such a situation is contra-indicated for one-way harassment, so far as I know.
"would you be open to repealing it?" Awfully specific parenthetical statements. Sure, I'd be open to repealing it.
I suspect I will more likely tend to the severe side of the balance rather than the gentle. It's certain to be a range given the variety of cases ArbCom hears.
I am not sure there should be a lower bar for acceptance of ADMINCOND cases relative to other kinds of cases, even though it is only AC's job to call admins to account currently. I think the bar for action against administrators in (all) cases is lower given the explicit policy on the point.
I am, with some trepidation, submitting a candidacy for the Arbitration Committee elections. I have been an editor here for nearly 15 years, an administrator for two of those, and an interface administrator for almost exactly a year. Like a few others, I did not intend to run this year and am personally doing so to help ensure a full-sized and effective committee going into the next term. Perhaps it is obvious from filing a candidacy, but I would be willing to serve on the committee even if other more-qualified candidates should run. I would bring my offline experience with systems design and engineering, so hopefully I'd be a collaborative committee member willing to consider creative solutions in the specific areas that ArbCom handles. As regards the future of ArbCom, I have been casually interested in devolving to the community some of the policy controls that ArbCom has put in place and which it has reserved to itself, so if there's time for a project, that might be one I would be interested in.
I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data. My alternative accounts are IznoBot, IznoRepeat, and IznoPublic.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2021 candidate:
Izno
|
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}
Note: Per
WP:ACERFC2020, there is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.
When I look at this question, I see the thorns of WP:FRAMBAN and how an organization should deal with claims of harassment, or the possibility of such should the evidence become public. Maybe that's an outlier case, but I think an answer to the question of how you verify the truthiness of some private evidence needs to consider that there may not be additional paths beyond (dis)trusting the submitter. Beyond that edge case, asking for corroboration from the other individuals in the evidence seems like a good next step, and possibly asking for intent or basis for actions taken as implicated in the evidence.
I assume this is essentially how ArbCom operates today, based on what I've seen on WT:ACN when actions have been taken based on private evidence.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your responses. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 20:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The data is interesting, but doesn't seem meaningful on a case-by-case basis. ArbCom is expected to be the last resort; my observation is that most of the cases it has accepted on the WP:ADMINCOND dimension have been appropriately accepted.
On an aside, that table might meaningfully be extended for cases where ADMINCOND was alleged and ArbCom declined to take the case, as well as the associated counts of votes for both acceptance and declining, as well as the vote for the sanctions (whether declined sanction or final) after an accepted case. That seems like better data to use to come to a meaningful conclusion on this point.
I applaud it as an effort to ensure a basic standard of decorum on Wikimedia projects. I am hopeful that it can/will be used as a tool for issues like those that have afflicted Croatian Wikipedia and as a tool to show new or smaller language wikis the behavior we generally expect from our members.
Conversely, I am leery of its potential applications to wikis with decent-if-not-perfect dispute resolution systems. Particularly, I read it when it was published and was worried that there were rules in it that English Wikipedia doesn't do a good job enforcing or which are today wedge issues, if even we have rules on certain points. (I haven't done a cross-check of the specifics to at least say which of the latter might exist, but I know that French Wikipedia has, as an example.)
"Should ArbCom care about what's said by uninvolved editors on the talk pages of a case or on the case request?"? I don't see harm in it, but if it's actually useful to the case, it probably deserves to be on the evidence or drafting pages (modulo evidence submitted at the request).
"Should ArbCom care about what's said by uninvolved editors on the case pages?"? Yes. I think it probably aids the committee's weighing of possible sanction for the parties to the case with respect to the interests of the larger community. And of course, ArbCom members themselves who are sufficiently involved recuse such that (ideally) ArbCom itself is a body uninvolved with the parties, so I'm not sure there's a way of getting around having uninvolved community members' thoughts leaning a direction on the case.
Let me know if I didn't answer the question completely (or at all).
Thank you for your answers Izno. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah, someone asked me that exact question in private almost immediately after I published it.
The first rule of interest would be the ratification rule itself; I like to think our systems for generating consensus has evolved past the point where we have a need for the rather arbitrary quorum we have today. The second area of interest might be the whole set of procedures and whether those should be subject solely to the arbitration committee's consensus. As I said though, this was a casual interest, and I think I've already added a link elsewhere on this page of ripe (defn #5) work that hasn't publicly moved in over a year regarding integrating the anti-harassment close.
WMF Banned User
|
---|
—
You have a below average length of service as an Administrator and not much participation in the so called drama board aspects of dispute resolution. Is there anything else in your experience that might convince people you have the requisite empathy for how hard it can often be to live up to the high ideals of ADMINCOND when confronted with the sort of disputes that characterises the ArbCom end of things? Horizon of Happy ( talk) 11:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
|
"volunteer"? No.
" conduct policies and expectations of administrators": Discord is not subject to all the same rules as Wikipedia (more strict in some and more lax in others), never mind that different groups will have different unobserved or undocumented rules ( norms). You may review the "official" rules at WP:Discord#Guidelines.
Access to privileged data requires at least the same level of privilege as the data is protected under. Discord as a service doesn't provide that for ArbCom data, so, no, not appropriate, even if I were to be discussing with another sufficiently-privileged user.
As for the latter question, I would in a case which pertains directly to that platform. I think I also would where the person is a significant contributor on that platform.
No to the first. Of course we'd like to keep everyone around contributing as net-positives, but stuff that ends up at ArbCom ends up at ArbCom because there is sustained unresolved disruption that needs to be dealt with that is impacting how the community is producing the encyclopedia or the encyclopedia itself.
As to the second, here's what I had to say a couple days ago about blocks and which I think is probably reasonable for ArbCom sanctions: "I usually weigh the breadth of the issue (1 to N pages), whether it was disruption in mainspace or elsewhere, which of the policies earned the user the block, how severe the policy violation was, and whether I think the user even will [ sic] take the opportunity to reform." If that falls under "type of editor and contribution" (especially the last I suppose?), then sure, it matters. If it doesn't, then probably not.
Thankyou for your answers! A7V2 ( talk) 04:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
"What is your stance on two-way IBANs that are imposed because of one-way harassment?" A two-way IBAN in such a situation is contra-indicated for one-way harassment, so far as I know.
"would you be open to repealing it?" Awfully specific parenthetical statements. Sure, I'd be open to repealing it.
I suspect I will more likely tend to the severe side of the balance rather than the gentle. It's certain to be a range given the variety of cases ArbCom hears.
I am not sure there should be a lower bar for acceptance of ADMINCOND cases relative to other kinds of cases, even though it is only AC's job to call admins to account currently. I think the bar for action against administrators in (all) cases is lower given the explicit policy on the point.