|
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
| |||
I am currently a little busy in real life and, so, cannot reply to the questions with the appropriate level of thoughtfulness for at least a couple of days. I apologise in advance, but I'll try to get to them as soon as I can.
Salvio
Let's talk about it! 11:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Salvio - I read the notice on your talk page, and hope your health is improving. Do you feel up to the task of participating on the ARB Com?
Atsme☯
Consult 16:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Atsme. Yes, I believe I am up to the task of being an arbitrator. As I've said in my candidate statement, for the past two years I have been one and my health issues have not prevented me from carrying out my responsibilities as a member of the committee. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
"Butthurt"
It seems that the candidate is being "Anti-Diversity baited" on his use of the slang term "butthurt"... Let's look at the etymology of that term of mild rebuke, shall we?
(1) "Know Your Meme" indicates that "The term “butthurt” originates from spanking[1], the act of striking the buttocks of another person, which is often seen as a method of punishing a child." It notes that it first appeared online c. 1998 and was added to Urban Dictionary.com in Dec. 2001; and added to Wiktionary in Aug. 2007. There is no indication of any anti-gay connotation in the origin of the word.
(2) The Online Slang Dictionary added the word "butt-hurt" in Jan. 1999, with a definition currently standing as "offended, upset, or angry, usually by a small slight or a friendly insult." There is no indication of any anti-gay connotation in the origin of the word.
(3) The top ranked response on Urban Dictionary gives a definition of "An inappropriately strong negative emotional response from a perceived personal insult. Characterized by strong feelings of shame. Frequently associated with a cessation of communication and overt hostility towards the 'aggressor.'" The second ranked definition is "Getting your feelings hurt, being offended or getting all bent out of shape because of something petty or stupid."
(4) Wiktionary says that the term means "Overly annoyed or bothered by a perceived insult; needlessly offended" as an adjective and "Annoyance because of a perceived insult." as a noun.
Nowhere outside of a couple crude user-submitted Urban Dictionary definitions is it indicated that the phrase has anything to do with anal sex, which is the fairly clear intimation of the pointed questions asked.
The irony of one being or feigning upset over this particular word seems self-evident. Carrite ( talk) 23:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Regardless of how you frame it, this word is vulgar in use and when targeted at another user on Wikipedia is deliberately demeaning and uncivil. Rather than focusing on anal sex, I suggest you focus on whether demeaning language is suitable when someone is acting in a significant elected and trusted role such as Arbcom; if re-elected it is clear that Salvio obviously intends to carry on in the same old behaviours. In the UK we have had ministers resigning over alleged use of the word "pleb", not too dissimilar a situation is it? --
Fæ (
talk) 05:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that you had to dredge up an edit I made in 2012 on commons just goes to show how much credence should be attached to your accusation... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- The facts speak for themselves as shown in the diffs, there is no "accusation" being made.
- As I highlighted, this was an issue this summer, when your fellow Arbcom member expected action against Russavia for exactly the same word. Personally it comes as no surprise that after two years to think about it, you are still vigorously defending your behaviour while damning everyone else in your field of view who thinks they can behave the same way. If you get back on Arbcom then I just don't see the culture on Wikipedia getting better any time soon, just further entrenchment of the same hostile attitudes. Maybe you'll think of a better way of spending your volunteer time, I'm keeping my fingers crossed. -- Fæ ( talk) 09:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The appearance of bias versus actual bias
I agree that Salvio didn't need to recuse in the recent GGTF case however he should have done so. For clarity I don't think he was actually biased but there was enough evidence that he should (as other arbs did in the case of Eric Corbett rulings to stand aside in relation to Sitush and Carolmooredc). Justice needs not only to be done but to be seen to be done. The issue of being perceived (and thus the Committee being perceived) as biased is serious and IMHO this was a major flaw in judgement by Salvio. If Salvio is re-elected I urge him to read R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_p_McCarthy#Judgment and take cognizance of it, not because he needs to but because the committee and the community's trust in that committee require him to-- Cailil talk 10:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree with you that I should have recused; if you examine it, my entire involvement concerning the dispute between Carol Moore and Sitush was limited to a one-line comment I made when discussing an unrelated matter, which was in its entirety "I advise against creating a biography on Carol". That was it. Honestly, I don't see how that can create the appearance of bias and, in my opinion, this entire issue was blown way out of proportion. I still think that there was not even an appearance of bias on my part, which is why I did not recuse. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry Salvio let be more precise - you should have (at least) abstained from votes in relation Carol & Sitush. Just as other Arbs did vis a vis votes on Eric. It's not about actually being biased. It's about the whole voting looking completely unbiased. It's not in fact about you but the process as a whole, and it worries me that you never got that (and that you still defend it). Look at WTT's & Beeblebrox's decisions to abstain in those instances. I absolutely agree you weren't in fact biased but I 100% question your choice not in the Sitush / Carolmooredc instances (this does in fact fail the R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_p_McCarthy test re: justice being seen to be done). I know this is a finer point but as far as I'm concerned it goes to overall judgement--
Cailil
talk 12:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I disagree. The interactions between Eric and the two arbitrators who abstained were different in nature from mine with Carol and Sitush. As a matter of fact, I can't remember ever interacting with Carol or making any comments about her, outside of the arbitration case; I actually can't remember ever mentioning her, except in that one-line comment. On the other hand, I have occasionally worked with Sitush in my capacity as a functionary.
In my opinion, this is not a finer point: I believe there was no reason I should have recused. If arbitrators are supposed to recuse even after making a minor comment on a matter, you'll end up pushing arbitrators to retire in an ivory tower, interacting with nobody except in arbitration matters, which I submit would be detrimental to Wikipedia, because you'd be forcing them to lose contact with the community and you'd be depriving the community of their experience and advice. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Except that the one interaction you had was a) very recent and b) (more importantly) about the matter on which the Committee made a finding and help come to a decision to ban one of the parties. Also I work at WP:AE, and used to (until RL became extremely demanding) do so very regularly, so I understand the difference between BS cries of "your involved" from partisan editors, and areas that although I'm not involved I should leave to others' judgement. For example there's a case at AE about the Abortion RFAR - I've never edited in that area however I have heavily edited
feminism and therefore despite my factual objectivity I would never be seen to be objective. And if I were an Arb I would have to recuse myself on such matters. This not about Ivory Towers Salvio, it's about the Community's trust in the Committee and protecting that trust.
And for the record I think the Committee did a good job with the GGTF ruling (despite it being controversial for some ppl) so I have no ax to grind. I also don't think any decision was unduly effected by your !Votes (so I'm not lobbying for reopening or any some such). However, if you cannot see the problem let me spell it out: you did not !vote on FoFs or remedies relating to Sitush (except on the 2 about his interaction with Carol) but did on all remedies and FoFs relating to Carol (see [1]).
The issue is that you offered Sitush your opinion (your judgement) on his BLP of Carol, which he created to further his dispute with her (a point of fact you accepted at the RFAR). This is then compounded when the whole matter comes before the committee (just weeks later) and you !vote on motions re:Carol's punishment but on nothing related to Sitush. The GGTF Interactions RFAR will be a case (for better or worse) that impact's WP's image and will be cited re: WP's (and ArbCom's) attitude to women.
All admins are functionaries here but what separates a functionary from an automaton is our judgement and discretion. Again I'm not suggesting impropriety just misjudgment and I'd be very happy if you'd simply undertake to try to avoid such appearances in the future. If the situation was that another Arb in a similar situation made a casting vote in a remedy or FoF with the appearance of injustice then the consequences for the Committee could be significant. And again you can see for yourself that two of your fellow Arbs made the call to abstain in votes re:Eric, not because of bias but because of the perception of bias-- Cailil talk 15:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Except that the one interaction you had was a) very recent and b) (more importantly) about the matter on which the Committee made a finding and help come to a decision to ban one of the parties. Also I work at WP:AE, and used to (until RL became extremely demanding) do so very regularly, so I understand the difference between BS cries of "your involved" from partisan editors, and areas that although I'm not involved I should leave to others' judgement. For example there's a case at AE about the Abortion RFAR - I've never edited in that area however I have heavily edited
feminism and therefore despite my factual objectivity I would never be seen to be objective. And if I were an Arb I would have to recuse myself on such matters. This not about Ivory Towers Salvio, it's about the Community's trust in the Committee and protecting that trust.
- Again, I disagree. The interactions between Eric and the two arbitrators who abstained were different in nature from mine with Carol and Sitush. As a matter of fact, I can't remember ever interacting with Carol or making any comments about her, outside of the arbitration case; I actually can't remember ever mentioning her, except in that one-line comment. On the other hand, I have occasionally worked with Sitush in my capacity as a functionary.
- Sorry Salvio let be more precise - you should have (at least) abstained from votes in relation Carol & Sitush. Just as other Arbs did vis a vis votes on Eric. It's not about actually being biased. It's about the whole voting looking completely unbiased. It's not in fact about you but the process as a whole, and it worries me that you never got that (and that you still defend it). Look at WTT's & Beeblebrox's decisions to abstain in those instances. I absolutely agree you weren't in fact biased but I 100% question your choice not in the Sitush / Carolmooredc instances (this does in fact fail the R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_p_McCarthy test re: justice being seen to be done). I know this is a finer point but as far as I'm concerned it goes to overall judgement--
Cailil
talk 12:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
|
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
| |||
I am currently a little busy in real life and, so, cannot reply to the questions with the appropriate level of thoughtfulness for at least a couple of days. I apologise in advance, but I'll try to get to them as soon as I can.
Salvio
Let's talk about it! 11:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Salvio - I read the notice on your talk page, and hope your health is improving. Do you feel up to the task of participating on the ARB Com?
Atsme☯
Consult 16:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Atsme. Yes, I believe I am up to the task of being an arbitrator. As I've said in my candidate statement, for the past two years I have been one and my health issues have not prevented me from carrying out my responsibilities as a member of the committee. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
"Butthurt"
It seems that the candidate is being "Anti-Diversity baited" on his use of the slang term "butthurt"... Let's look at the etymology of that term of mild rebuke, shall we?
(1) "Know Your Meme" indicates that "The term “butthurt” originates from spanking[1], the act of striking the buttocks of another person, which is often seen as a method of punishing a child." It notes that it first appeared online c. 1998 and was added to Urban Dictionary.com in Dec. 2001; and added to Wiktionary in Aug. 2007. There is no indication of any anti-gay connotation in the origin of the word.
(2) The Online Slang Dictionary added the word "butt-hurt" in Jan. 1999, with a definition currently standing as "offended, upset, or angry, usually by a small slight or a friendly insult." There is no indication of any anti-gay connotation in the origin of the word.
(3) The top ranked response on Urban Dictionary gives a definition of "An inappropriately strong negative emotional response from a perceived personal insult. Characterized by strong feelings of shame. Frequently associated with a cessation of communication and overt hostility towards the 'aggressor.'" The second ranked definition is "Getting your feelings hurt, being offended or getting all bent out of shape because of something petty or stupid."
(4) Wiktionary says that the term means "Overly annoyed or bothered by a perceived insult; needlessly offended" as an adjective and "Annoyance because of a perceived insult." as a noun.
Nowhere outside of a couple crude user-submitted Urban Dictionary definitions is it indicated that the phrase has anything to do with anal sex, which is the fairly clear intimation of the pointed questions asked.
The irony of one being or feigning upset over this particular word seems self-evident. Carrite ( talk) 23:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Regardless of how you frame it, this word is vulgar in use and when targeted at another user on Wikipedia is deliberately demeaning and uncivil. Rather than focusing on anal sex, I suggest you focus on whether demeaning language is suitable when someone is acting in a significant elected and trusted role such as Arbcom; if re-elected it is clear that Salvio obviously intends to carry on in the same old behaviours. In the UK we have had ministers resigning over alleged use of the word "pleb", not too dissimilar a situation is it? --
Fæ (
talk) 05:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that you had to dredge up an edit I made in 2012 on commons just goes to show how much credence should be attached to your accusation... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- The facts speak for themselves as shown in the diffs, there is no "accusation" being made.
- As I highlighted, this was an issue this summer, when your fellow Arbcom member expected action against Russavia for exactly the same word. Personally it comes as no surprise that after two years to think about it, you are still vigorously defending your behaviour while damning everyone else in your field of view who thinks they can behave the same way. If you get back on Arbcom then I just don't see the culture on Wikipedia getting better any time soon, just further entrenchment of the same hostile attitudes. Maybe you'll think of a better way of spending your volunteer time, I'm keeping my fingers crossed. -- Fæ ( talk) 09:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The appearance of bias versus actual bias
I agree that Salvio didn't need to recuse in the recent GGTF case however he should have done so. For clarity I don't think he was actually biased but there was enough evidence that he should (as other arbs did in the case of Eric Corbett rulings to stand aside in relation to Sitush and Carolmooredc). Justice needs not only to be done but to be seen to be done. The issue of being perceived (and thus the Committee being perceived) as biased is serious and IMHO this was a major flaw in judgement by Salvio. If Salvio is re-elected I urge him to read R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_p_McCarthy#Judgment and take cognizance of it, not because he needs to but because the committee and the community's trust in that committee require him to-- Cailil talk 10:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree with you that I should have recused; if you examine it, my entire involvement concerning the dispute between Carol Moore and Sitush was limited to a one-line comment I made when discussing an unrelated matter, which was in its entirety "I advise against creating a biography on Carol". That was it. Honestly, I don't see how that can create the appearance of bias and, in my opinion, this entire issue was blown way out of proportion. I still think that there was not even an appearance of bias on my part, which is why I did not recuse. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry Salvio let be more precise - you should have (at least) abstained from votes in relation Carol & Sitush. Just as other Arbs did vis a vis votes on Eric. It's not about actually being biased. It's about the whole voting looking completely unbiased. It's not in fact about you but the process as a whole, and it worries me that you never got that (and that you still defend it). Look at WTT's & Beeblebrox's decisions to abstain in those instances. I absolutely agree you weren't in fact biased but I 100% question your choice not in the Sitush / Carolmooredc instances (this does in fact fail the R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_p_McCarthy test re: justice being seen to be done). I know this is a finer point but as far as I'm concerned it goes to overall judgement--
Cailil
talk 12:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I disagree. The interactions between Eric and the two arbitrators who abstained were different in nature from mine with Carol and Sitush. As a matter of fact, I can't remember ever interacting with Carol or making any comments about her, outside of the arbitration case; I actually can't remember ever mentioning her, except in that one-line comment. On the other hand, I have occasionally worked with Sitush in my capacity as a functionary.
In my opinion, this is not a finer point: I believe there was no reason I should have recused. If arbitrators are supposed to recuse even after making a minor comment on a matter, you'll end up pushing arbitrators to retire in an ivory tower, interacting with nobody except in arbitration matters, which I submit would be detrimental to Wikipedia, because you'd be forcing them to lose contact with the community and you'd be depriving the community of their experience and advice. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Except that the one interaction you had was a) very recent and b) (more importantly) about the matter on which the Committee made a finding and help come to a decision to ban one of the parties. Also I work at WP:AE, and used to (until RL became extremely demanding) do so very regularly, so I understand the difference between BS cries of "your involved" from partisan editors, and areas that although I'm not involved I should leave to others' judgement. For example there's a case at AE about the Abortion RFAR - I've never edited in that area however I have heavily edited
feminism and therefore despite my factual objectivity I would never be seen to be objective. And if I were an Arb I would have to recuse myself on such matters. This not about Ivory Towers Salvio, it's about the Community's trust in the Committee and protecting that trust.
And for the record I think the Committee did a good job with the GGTF ruling (despite it being controversial for some ppl) so I have no ax to grind. I also don't think any decision was unduly effected by your !Votes (so I'm not lobbying for reopening or any some such). However, if you cannot see the problem let me spell it out: you did not !vote on FoFs or remedies relating to Sitush (except on the 2 about his interaction with Carol) but did on all remedies and FoFs relating to Carol (see [1]).
The issue is that you offered Sitush your opinion (your judgement) on his BLP of Carol, which he created to further his dispute with her (a point of fact you accepted at the RFAR). This is then compounded when the whole matter comes before the committee (just weeks later) and you !vote on motions re:Carol's punishment but on nothing related to Sitush. The GGTF Interactions RFAR will be a case (for better or worse) that impact's WP's image and will be cited re: WP's (and ArbCom's) attitude to women.
All admins are functionaries here but what separates a functionary from an automaton is our judgement and discretion. Again I'm not suggesting impropriety just misjudgment and I'd be very happy if you'd simply undertake to try to avoid such appearances in the future. If the situation was that another Arb in a similar situation made a casting vote in a remedy or FoF with the appearance of injustice then the consequences for the Committee could be significant. And again you can see for yourself that two of your fellow Arbs made the call to abstain in votes re:Eric, not because of bias but because of the perception of bias-- Cailil talk 15:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Except that the one interaction you had was a) very recent and b) (more importantly) about the matter on which the Committee made a finding and help come to a decision to ban one of the parties. Also I work at WP:AE, and used to (until RL became extremely demanding) do so very regularly, so I understand the difference between BS cries of "your involved" from partisan editors, and areas that although I'm not involved I should leave to others' judgement. For example there's a case at AE about the Abortion RFAR - I've never edited in that area however I have heavily edited
feminism and therefore despite my factual objectivity I would never be seen to be objective. And if I were an Arb I would have to recuse myself on such matters. This not about Ivory Towers Salvio, it's about the Community's trust in the Committee and protecting that trust.
- Again, I disagree. The interactions between Eric and the two arbitrators who abstained were different in nature from mine with Carol and Sitush. As a matter of fact, I can't remember ever interacting with Carol or making any comments about her, outside of the arbitration case; I actually can't remember ever mentioning her, except in that one-line comment. On the other hand, I have occasionally worked with Sitush in my capacity as a functionary.
- Sorry Salvio let be more precise - you should have (at least) abstained from votes in relation Carol & Sitush. Just as other Arbs did vis a vis votes on Eric. It's not about actually being biased. It's about the whole voting looking completely unbiased. It's not in fact about you but the process as a whole, and it worries me that you never got that (and that you still defend it). Look at WTT's & Beeblebrox's decisions to abstain in those instances. I absolutely agree you weren't in fact biased but I 100% question your choice not in the Sitush / Carolmooredc instances (this does in fact fail the R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_p_McCarthy test re: justice being seen to be done). I know this is a finer point but as far as I'm concerned it goes to overall judgement--
Cailil
talk 12:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)