|
- I step forward, because I think that Arbcom should be more diverse. A greater diversity at Arbcom would not save the world by itself, but could give a greater legitimacy to this instance and help her to fulfill her main duty: being the last line of defense of the community concerning poor behavioral patterns (or alleged poor behavioral patterns).
- I am one of these many small contributors that came to write into Wikipedia because they don't find the article they were searching for. In my case, this was concerning the Offices during the Joseon period in Korea. While I was writing about some Korean painters and even telling to some relatives: "look at what I participated", came the shitstorm of that cucumber painted portrait. How freezing this was (not the painting by itself, but the way it was dealt with). I have written some pieces of advice relative to this story: they can be used to look into my way of reasoning.
- Obviously, I know that Commons is another country, but our own fallacies often appear more clearly when we see them replicated across a border or another. A part from my main space activity here, I have also written some comments during the Manning case. I think it is important that our system of conflict resolution acts as a damping system, allowing behavioral problems to dissipate, rather than amplify under firephylia behaviour.
- Therefore, when dealing with the cases that escalated to Arbcom, a clear distinction should be done between the case of someone turning amok once (due to harassment or to any other burning out context) and the case of a long term warrior refusing to cool down despite the n-th chances given (with a large n). In the first case, a long presence should be held as attenuating (the longer was the presence, the more were the occasions for being bullied). In the second one, a longer presence should be held as aggravating (the longer was the presence, the more were the occasions for learning policies and cooperation). A greater diversity of Arbcom could made this more evident.
- To conclude, I assert that this account is the only one I ever used in the whole Wikipedia galaxy, that I fulfill the conditions of age and good standing, and will identify to the WMF as soon as elected.
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}
- I find your candidate statement "...the shitstorm of that cucumber painted portrait. How freezing this was (not the painting by itself, but the way it was dealt with). I have written some pieces of advice relative to this story: they can be used to look into my way of reasoning," confusing. Could you link to the "pieces of advice relative to this story"? or perhaps just state how you think the case of User:Russavia should have been handled. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for stepping forward!
- Arbitration findings and the wishes of principal editors govern the use of infoboxes in articles. If you want to win my "neutral" please say how you would close the discussion at Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?
· What do I think, as an Arbcom candidate, about a content dispute ? Nothing. And when the content dispute is about infoboxes ? Nothing. And when Gerda Arendt is part of the dispute ? Nothing. Solving content disputes is not the job of Arbcom. · What do I think, as an Arbcom candidate, about the behaviour of the various people that are taking part in the quoted content dispute ? Nothing. Even when the dispute is about infoboxes ? Nothing. Even if Gerda Arendt is part of the controversy ? Nothing. Patrolling content controversies for possible misbehaviour is not the job of Arbcom. · Arbcom is the last line of defense of the community against poor behavioral patterns. No more, no less. Do I want to win your "neutral", or the "neutral" of User:Kleinzach, or any other vote of any participant to the quoted content dispute ? I want to win the "support" of people wanting to install diligent, community oriented Arbs. Your choice is your's.
- The discussion - which would be different without previous arbcom findings - is (needless to say) only an example where I could see your evaluation of a consensus (which I think is critical for arbitration). Any comment to the underlying questions, such as how influential is the like or dislike of a principal editor? how useful was it to place discussions on a case-to-case-basis? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor has been blocked for a month in the name of arbitration enforcement for having said that he creates half of his featured content with women. I find it kafkaesque and remember the opening of The Metamorphosis for an analogy. If you want to win my "support", please - on top of #1 - suggest improvements to get from arbitration enforcement ("not a fun place") to arbitration supervision, where such a thing would not happen. I offered some thoughts, wishing to see Floquenbeam's "no foul, play on" more often, or Yunshui's "The edit was unproblematic and actually made Wikipedia better."
- --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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!
- The Audit Subcommittee was created in 2009 to investigate improper tool usage of our Check Users and Oversighters. Currently, neither the community nor the committee can decide how to handle it. There have been calls to completely disband the subcommittee, transfer its role to the functionaries en banc, and extend it for another year. The current auditors terms expired on 1 October, 2015 and they have been continuing in their roles without formal authorization. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?
The community needs Checkusers and Oversighters. Due to their roles, a supervision is also required. Absolutely required. My opinion is that organizing the continuity of such a supervision structure belongs to the duties of the actual Arbcom. If you really want an advice from the next coming team, a motion to extend the actual structure to 2016-03-31 would be great, giving a sufficient lapse of time for the new team and the community to make her opinion and act. Pldx1 ( talk) 20:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ban Appeals Subcommittee exists to hear appeals of community bans and long-term blocks. There have been moves to divest this role from the committee. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?
A community ban is only banning the role played onwiki by a real life person. This is not the same as banning a real life person from her real life. Nevertheless, appeals must be possible, and should be organized in order to not overflow the Arb body with a flow of snow requests. We should have two ways of appeal. Are you asking a newcomer to prove her inventiveness ? · Arguing against the ban (new findings, conspiracy of the Arbs, whatever). Pick at random 3 Arbs, ask them for a report to the whole Arb body. Vote (may be six sessions a year) allowing or not the role played to be reactivated and linked back to the living person, with all the required apologies. · Accepting the ban, but arguing redemption. Pick two Arbs at random (new ones for a new appeal 12 month later). Let them decide for a Standard offer... with the condition of not linking ever to the previous role (especially not with the poor behavior). If granted, let see that as a second chance, i.e. as a chance that will never ever granted again (responsibility of the Arbs for not granting it too early). Feasibility ? Opinions of former Arbs are required ! Who should decide (if Arbcom agree on feasibility) ? Community obviously: Wikipedia is not a democracy, but Arbcom is not a dictatorship. Pldx1 ( talk) 11:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Current Disputes and Cases[edit]
- What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?
- Nearly every case involves violations of the civility policy in some way. At one time, a remedy call a "Civility Parole" existed but it fell out of vogue. Today, the only tools in the current Arbitrator's toolboxes to deal with civility issues are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. What new and creative ways would you bring to the table to solve this problem?
- Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?
Do I believe that I can be ousted more easily than a 10 more productive editor for the same hypothetical huge misbehavior ? Yes. Do I see that as a problem ? No. This can only help me to stick to the required behavior. All of our business is about writing an Encyclopedia. Spending time to administration is an irreplaceable part of the business. But old crocodiles should also be convinced that beyond the enough is enough line, the outer door is wide open. This can only help them to stick to the required behavior. Moreover, §4 of my candidacy statement applies: context matters. Pldx1 ( talk) 09:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?
I don't see Admonishments and Warnings as remedies, but rather as steps for a further diagnostic (should the case reignite). Our system of conflict resolution should act as a damping system, allowing behavioral problems to dissipate (see §3). A & W are an occasion to recall that all the resources allocated to dramaboards could have been used in the main space, and that a reignition wouldn't be welcome. Pldx1 ( talk) 09:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?
- To what extent should people who write many GAs and FAs be exempt from WP:CIVIL?
- Would you consider this a representative sample of your approach to dispute resolution? Is this the kind of commentary we should expect from you as an arbitrator?
Answer
- Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
- If an administrator states (hypothetically) "You will vote however you like, and I am frankly not interested in changing your mind, but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me. At the moment, you are not", would that administrator be considered "involved" or "impartial" in any way with the editor in whose talk space he made such an edit?
- Are arbitators under any reasonable obligation to afford editors who are out of the country on a trip, or have other substantial reasons for absence from a case, any delays in considering cases concerning them? If such a person is given only 1000 words to rebut 1000 words from each of five or more "evidence providers", is that a reasonable limit to place on the defendant, or ought the limit be raised to allow rebuttal of each such section?
- Please divulge as much of your demographic information as you are comfortable making public. Specifically: your gender, including whether you are cis, trans or other; your sexual orientation; your race and/or ethnicity; where you live (feel free to specify you live in Triesenberg if you want, but a country or continent will do just fine — even just "Southern Hemisphere" or "Western Hemisphere" is helpful); whether you have any condition considered a disability (even if you're not so disabled you're unable to work) including deafness, physical disabilities, developmental disabilities and mental illnesses, again being only as specific as you wish; and what social class you belong to (e.g. working class, middle class, etc.). ¶ If you prefer not to answer any or all of those categories, I won't count it against you. My intention in asking for this information is not to out anyone or try to force affirmative action. However, when deciding between two otherwise equally qualified candidates, I would prefer to be able to vote for more diversity on ArbCom rather than less.
Please divulge as much of your opinion as you are comfortable making public about how the pseudonym you have chosen (and your own description as a grammar nazi on your user page) could appear offensive to various people whatever their gender, sexual orientation, race and/or ethnicity, country, deafness, physical disabilities, developmental disabilities and mental illnesses, social class and even Hemisphere ? Pldx1 ( talk) 12:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Turning the question around on me is entirely fair. I actually chose the username GrammarFascist thinking it would be less likely to offend, but you're not the first person to question it. It's meant as a simple play on words referencing the common colloquialism "grammar nazi", which is not considered related to actual Nazism and which is even found in other languages. I am emphatically not an actual fascist or Nazi and disagree with every tenet of fascist and Nazi beliefs. Being a queer brown cripple with both physical and developmental disabilities, I would have been targeted for extermination by the Third Reich, so it would be against my self-interest to support such ideas. I would certainly understand if someone was offended by my username, and I would apologize for offending them if it ever happened... but I've had this username since 2011, and no one has said they were offended yet. Thanks for the opportunity to explain. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please list at least one pro and one con of having non-administrators serve on ArbCom.
- In the past couple of years, the ArbCom has closed various cases, passed motions, and such. Is/Are there any outcome/s that you disagree with? If yes, which? And, what result/s would you have rather preferred? Yash! 06:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I'm Dave, I was on Arbcom between 2013 and 2014. I can tell you now that being an arbitrator is tough - you become a target. Comments you make will be taken out of context, your motives and abilities will be insulted, you may be threatened or harassed. Have you thought much about the "dark side" of being an arbitrator? How have you prepared for this?
|
