Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:51, 21 November 2017

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Thank you for standing, nice to meet you! A woman, very welcome! A user who says "We're all human and we're all volunteers." Very welcome! (Compare my edit notice.) - Still, my one and only question this year, as for all others: Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

   There are a couple of parts here.Do I agree the case should be declined? Yes, because I agree that if we're going to be a community-driven project, we should give community-based solutions a chance to work. That didn't happen here. If the ANI sanction doesn't work, and this specific user's conduct is still an issue, it can be taken up later.Do I agree with OR's exposition about civility? More or less. First, understand that there are words that routinely come out of my mouth that sailors haven't even thought to use. I don't direct them, however, at other people, only at situations. I think if annoyed or upset people waited a little while before they pounded out the first thing that came to their minds, we might all get along a little better. In any case, what is the Committee going to do about civility? Pronounce from on high that the use of certain words is hereby prohibited and presto! all our civility problems are solved? I promise that even if that happened, someone would find something else to get upset about. "Well, he didn't say 'fuck off', but he did say 'screw you,' so I want him blocked!" Again, just take a step back and wait before hitting the 'save changes' button. Sleep on it. Take a walk. Eat some ice cream. Pet your dog. (Although I do not have a dog and I seem to get on just fine.) Then, after rereading your text, if you're still that upset, go right ahead and vent your spleen. If someone wants to change WP:CIVIL to endorse or prohibit certain phrases, or to change the way we as a group approach that pillar, they should go for it, but it's not the Committee's place, IMO. Katie 13:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Question from Nick

2. Pick three Arbitration cases from the last six years, explain in detail what aspects of the committee you agree with, what aspects you disagree with, and what you would attempt to do differently. Where you disagree with the previous outcomes and where you would do things differently, indicate how you would attempt to gain consensus and support from the other committee members.

   I have to limit myself to after 2015, because I was on a break more or less for health reasons for roughly four years. I can find problems with two, but I'll keep looking.The Arthur Rubin case went on much too long. It was pretty obvious to me after the first couple of weeks that AR wasn't going to participate (much like he kept stalling TRM for those diffs). It's one thing to say, "I'm ill" or "I'm really busy IRL and can't respond until X", but to simply ignore the proceeding is unacceptable administrator conduct. In the future, I'd like to see a hard deadline given to editors like this. If they disregard it, that's their choice, and things should proceed without them. To be clear, I don't think a hard deadline is appropriate in all cases – only for those who drag their feet and obstruct, or who stick their heads in the sand in hopes that ignoring it will make it go away.The problem I have with the TRM case is the wording of the sanction, as it left too much open to interpretation. Civility is a tough row to hoe, as I stated up above in Gerda's section. It's really not fair to put a sanction like that in place with so much ambiguity. It's since been amended, a little anyway, so we'll see if that helps. (I would recuse myself in any proceeding involving TRM.) Katie 14:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Questions from Collect

2. Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?

4. If an administrator has openly stated a strong aversion to an editor's article edits on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?

6. a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, ought there be a delay to give that editor sufficient time to address "new evidence"?
   b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, ought space and time for rebuttal be given?
   c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
   d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?

Questions from DGG

2. Officially, Arbcom is supposed to deal primarily with conduct disputes, not content, and to interpret and apply policy, not make it. But it has always seemed to me that most conduct disputes have their origin in disagreements over content, and that Arb Com has in fact been most successful when actually dealing with content concerns, as in the pseudoscience and nationalism related cases, even though it may have to word it indirectly. And it has also always seemed to me that the necessary interpretation of policy can in effect amount to making policy, as with the cases involving BLP. What do you think? DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

4. There have been very few actual arb com cases in the last few years, which might indicate that the community is doing better with its problems, and that the basic rules are becoming well understood. It seems to me that most of the business at arb com has been dealing with ban appeals, which is done on the mailing list, and often involves considerations of privacy. I'm not sure we do very well at this. What do you think about this? DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC))

6. When I joined arb com 3 years ago, most arbs thought that the terms of use were not necessarily enforceable policy at the English Misplaced Pages, and that arb com has no role in its enforcement. I strongly disagreed at the time--I think they are inherently policy to the extent they are applicable, and arb com has the same jurisdiction as for other behavioral policy. (Of course, we may want or need to interpret it further--and certainly can extend it.) To some degree, I think it possible that the prevailing opinion may have been changing a little towards the position I hold. Where do you stand? DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC))

8. As I see it, most arbs are of the opinion that the requirement that editors avoid outing applied equally to good faith and bad faith editors. I however think that it ought to be interpreted to apply with much less rigor to those who appear to be editing in bad faith or deliberately against the terms of use. (I recognize the difficulty in deciding initially who is editing in bad faith) Where do you stand? DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC))