Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Special/2008-12/L-S

986:

hard it is to get fifteen people to do something, especially when it's dealing with contentious, emotion-laden situations. That being said, I totally agree that things do need to be handled more swiftly without sacrificing thoroughness and fairness. Taking over a month to vote on an arbitration case and allowing three months for evidence submission is simply way too long and unfair to all participants. I feel that the arbitrators are dedicated editors who have integrity and do endeavor to carry out their duties the best they can; I do not think they are the problem, rather, it's the system that needs to be fixed. The community needs to agree on how to do that. The transparency of the committee needs to be greater, while maintaining due concern for privacy. Their workflow management needs to be modified. As the English Knowledge has grown so large, these problems have been exacerbated; the process needs to be adjusted in reaction. Arbitrators are inundated with work and we need to see how we can make that flow better.

1024:

need to be clearer (like all desysops have not always specified if RFAs are available or only an arbcom petition to regain the bit) and more explanation, especially for less obvious rulings would do a world of good. As I said elsewhere, I will do my best to improve arbcom but if elected I would be only 1/15 of that committee. I thought the desyssopping of CSCWEM was done well. He had already been given many chances to respond, and the acted soundly and swiftly. A case I was pleased with was Abtract-Collectonian. This only took two weeks and was a good ruling. Two poor things from this year are the slow case of case handling (especially the Cla58 case) and the Orangemarlin situation where which was released onwiki from private hearings and then they disagreed and retracted are certainly poor examples. I was involved in research on this year's Poetlister case, one of the biggest cases ever.

856:"confidential" evidence to be stretched beyond a reasonable point, allowing editors to submit evidence that does not contain any private information under the cloak of secrecy, preventing the community and any editors named from assessing the significance of this evidence, and responding to it. I'd like to see a middle path, where only genuinely private or harmful information is kept confidential, and editors are required to submit any other evidence on-wiki. It is impossible, however, for those of us not already privy to the Arbcom mailing list to determine how much private evidence has been involved in prior cases; thus, I am not in a position to propose an appropriately crafted protocol at this time. 794:

dependent on the commentary of interested parties and context-free “diffs” that give only snapshots of often complex situations. Transparency is not a priority. Well-considered commentary is drowned out by acrimonious hyperbole and self-serving rhetoric. Arbitrators frequently fail to identify the heart of the problem, and their decisions give the appearance of taking the path of least resistance rather than the path to resolution. All who are involved come away disillusioned and disheartened, regardless of the final decision. The process itself exacerbates the harm it seeks to halt.

27: 834:

decision turned out to be the right one, despite the uproar that it caused at the time the case was closed; the community was still very divided on the seriousness of any sockpuppetry at that time. When definitive evidence was developed to show that sockpuppetry had recurred well after the decision was released, the community was readily agreeable to banning of the Mantanmoreland accounts. I agree with the general dissatisfaction with the length of time it took to resolve the

399:. I've worked at DRV for nearly a year now, and am active in editing the CSD policy page and the talk pages of all three. The skill set used in making the decisions for these processes is entirely different from those used at ANI and the like, which I believe would be a useful asset to ArbCom. I also hope it gives me a slightly different perspective than most of the other candidates. 1452:

users on the Arbitration Committee, as well as the length of time in a term. I have made a proposal that seemed to get good community support, that would limit ArbCom terms to two years. I will hold myself to those terms: If elected, I will inform Jimbo that I wish my "tranche" to end in December 2010, and will either finish my post at that time, or run for re-election at that time.

790:

of the imperfection of written communication combined with strong feelings and divergent interpretations of policy, English usage, and intention. When behaviour violates our policies, we employ dispute resolution. These processes seem to have more good intention than good effect, because they often fail to change the behaviours or resolve the dispute.

1456:

has become a bit more like a deity sitting on high, taking pleadings from petitioners, and then issuing proclamations from above. In several cases I've been in front of ArbCom, there was a sense of the community that they wished ArbCom would help provide guidance in a case, on what evidence that they wanted to see, which was not forthcoming.

798:

dispassionately illustrates the core issues instead of the peripheral distractions. We need to re-establish the Arbitration Committee as a place to resolve disputes in a collaborative and positive way without inflicting further harm on ourselves, our hopeful hearts. Because, at the end of the day, Knowledge is an encyclopedia.

621:- not as painful as it sounds, rather the concept that I will be regularly available, in real time, 'on wiki', in voice conversation, or via any practicable means to talk about anything any Wikipedian would like to. Every Sunday evening, UTC, any wiki editor can simply talk something through with me as an arb, if they'd like. 263: 1447:

The last year has been a rough one for the Arbitration Committee. Several tough cases have come before ArbCom, and they'll be the first to admit that missteps have been made. There need to be new blood and new ideas on the Arbitration Committee, and I think that I am a good candidate to bring both to

789:

The same thing that makes Knowledge special is also its Achilles heel. Bringing together such a large group of people from different cultures, social skills and educational levels means there is plenty of room for normal human disagreements. Disputes are magnified and can quickly escalate as a result

181:

before they flare up into serious issues, and not an arbcom that is seen to conduct its affairs in secret, dither on controversial cases, take astonishing amounts of time to come to decisions, or end up delivering "soft" resolutions that do little to resolve antisocial behaviour and little to prevent

41:

The election guide is intended to be a brief overview of each candidate's beliefs and experiences. More detailed information about each candidate may be gleaned from their user pages, as well as their responses to questions from other users. Not all candidates have yet replied to our questions; their

701:

for the main reasons - but I'll add that I'm polite, honest, care about the project and its goals, and represent a real chance for positive change in an important spot for the community. As I've said in my candidate statement, if you disagree, and would like to Oppose, please consider making me your

176:

I've been editing Knowledge since 2004, and I thought that I might as well throw my hat in the ring here. Arbcom is an important mechanism for resolving disputes and solving problems that can't otherwise be solved, but despite the best efforts of the current slate of arbitrators, I feel that it has

1525:

Questions about Confidentiality can never be a yes/no question, because it's so vague in general. Would I share information with other parties that would violate Knowledge's privacy policy? No. Would I make a decision based on confidential information without making it public? Yes, but I would note

1455:

The Arbitration Commitee has generally served Knowledge well, but as more and more "old-hands" on the committee have succumbed to burnout and battle fatigue, there's been stutters, a sense that sometimes, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. There's also been a sense that ArbCom

1358:

Without pointing specific fingers there are a lot of things broke about the way ArbCom works at the moment - mailing list leaks that haven't been plugged, super secret trials and information - tons of things that seemed like silly little flea bites when they started are now out of control festering

1223:

With ArbCom perhaps at its lowest ebb, and attracting high levels of dissatisfaction, this incoming tranche of arbitrators will not only have to handle cases but also face reforming the way the committee works. Perhaps the most urgent priority is tackling perceptions of growing irrelevance, lack of

684:

This is a very sensitive area, and basically there's no 'right answer' except to be firm in adhering to high ethical standards. Whilst certain evidence may be necessarily confidential, I consider it basic tenet of fairness to allow parties to 'hear the charges and evidence against them' in order to

379:

As far as arbitration itself goes, I'm a complete outsider. I've never participated in any case in any way. I do, however, learn fast (then again, so do we all; the learning curve for Knowledge is pretty steep), so I should be fine in the long run. I assure voters that I wouldn't be running if I

1534:

Because Knowledge needs ArbCom to change and become more accountable, and more open. I think that I can do that for Knowledge, along with other fine, qualified candidates. This is a chance for the average member of the Knowledge community to directly influence how the encyclopedia changes over the

1462:

Due to pure turnover, the Arbitration Committee IS changing. Now we, the users of Knowledge have our own charge. The arbitrators that we elect, over the next two or three years, will greatly influence how ArbCom in turn influences the encyclopedia. It's in your hands. Elect the candidates that you

985:

I sympathize with the many concerns the community has voiced about the committee this year but also understand the frustrations and problems the arbitrators themselves face every day. Every new inductee promises that they will make the arbitration process faster, but they learn on day one just how

864:

I bring a different voice to the table. I continue to believe in the core philosophy of the project, and try to exemplify it in my editing and administrative actions. My own wiki-history features collaborative work on a wide range of content, as well as involvement in most administrative areas; in

464:

Depends on the evidence. If there's a damn fine reason for keeping it private, then I would. If there isn't a good reason to, I'd make it public. I plan to make decisions based on all evidence I have access to, whether public or private, in order to get the most full picture of the situation as

251:

I feel that the community has lost faith in the committee, and in a large part this is because it is, to an extent, dominated by an "elite". I think that by coming in "from the outside" and lending a hand, I can help the encyclopædia by making sensible, commonsense, drama-free calls that restores

1451:

First, I must make a preemptive pledge. The Arbitration Committee has had a high percentage of burnout, since its inception. It takes a lot out of anyone who has to necessarily be knee deep in every major conflict on the encyclopedia. There are items being proposed that would revamp the number of

1242:

Otherwise, I'm calm and analytical, with no axes to grind. I try to combine civility with brevity and good humour. (Strangely, I also enjoy drafting text for simplicity and clarity, and have done a far amount of this with Milhist guidelines.) I rarely get irritated and never show it. I am used to

1023:

Arbcom took some hits this year for sure, but it is all fixable. Most of the issues seem to relate to transparency, communicating with community, and apparent splits amongst the arbs themselves. This does not mean everyone will always agree. Reasonable people will not always agree. Arbcom rulings

965:

I have been an editor since November 2005, an administrator since February 2007, and have worked closely with ArbCom since becoming an arbitration clerk in November 2007. However, I am still grounded in what we are here for—building an encyclopedia: I have significantly contributed to 15 featured

284:

My record speaks for itself - four years of steady contributions, without any of the drama, controversy, and upheaval that has occured around some other members of the community. Voters who vote for me are voting for a steady hand on the wheel; I'm not glamourous or flashy, but I can get the job

989:

Additionally, the long term ethnic wars concern me, as do the various cliques that try to control articles' content. We need to be very firm with those who refuse to by our policies and help foster a positive, collegial atmosphere for building the encyclopedia. We want Knowledge to be known as a

785:

Knowledge is an encyclopedia. It’s created by people from all over the world, drawn to the opportunity to share their knowledge, skills and talent, without material benefit. From brilliant writers to wikignomes, with many in between, there is one common thread: we all have hopeful hearts. We see

275:

Confidentality is important, and it should be respected. If evidence is submitted to the committee under the understanding that it should remain private, then I will not share it outside the commitee. However, I would endeavour to make as much information as I could on ongoing cases public, to

869:, which I largely authored. I recognise that there are many ways in which one can contribute to the development and improvement of the encyclopedia, and that helps me to better understand and address the conflicts between those who primarily focus on specific functions of encyclopedia-building. 674:

It's my view that the committee performs embarrassingly poorly, failing to lead, failing to engage the community, and listen properly, and critically, failing to resolve, or de-escalate problematic sitations. The 'Orangemarlin' debacle was widely criticised, more worringly the mistakes were not

855:

I understand that there is some information the Arbitration Committee receives that should be kept confidential to protect the privacy of an editor or to ensure the well-being of an editor or even the encyclopedia. On the other hand, I believe that the Committee has permitted the definition of

1033:

Certain matters require confidentiality, privacy, common decency and decorum. Evidence submitted privately that is in fact private should stay with arbcom. If this info were pertinent to the case and privacy was involved, it could affect the case without being disclosed, but that would be the

833:

The advance posting of the shortlist of CheckUser and Oversight candidates was a good first step in the right direction, and hope that this "experiment" will continue to evolve so that in the future more community input is sought before appointments are made. I believe that the Mantanmoreland

793:

Arbitration is intended to address editorial behavioural issues with the goal of removing roadblocks to the continued improvement of the encyclopedia, yet it tends to do this in a remarkably superficial way. Instead of drilling down to identify the root cause(s) of the problems, it is largely

823:

Several of our colleagues, including many whom I hold in high regard, have encouraged me to put my name forward over the last several months. I think it's important for the membership of the Arbitration Committee to be reflective of the broad diversity of the project. My candidacy brings an

537: 797:

My contribution, should I be appointed to the Arbitration Committee, will be to ask questions and expect—and give—straightforward responses; to prevent arbitration pages from becoming just another battleground; and to encourage editors uninvolved in the conflict to develop evidence that

1333: 1198: 565:

I've been around the wiki for a few years now - less than some, but more than most, I'd say (reader from 2003 onwards, dabbler 2004, registered my first account 2005).... Head over to my userpage for important background, and of course feel free to ask any questions of me you'd like

1422: 151: 343: 936: 760: 1098: 1359:

sores that no one knows how to fix. I'm afraid my style is a bit more cauterize the wounds and a bit less touchy-feely recovery, but I think some honesty, frankness and transparency might just be the things that can turn around some of these disturbing trends.

402:

My thoughts on what ArbCom should be doing are pretty much what everyone else says. It should be fast and responsive. Supposing that I am elected, I will do my best to be both, insofar as I am able. Beyond that, I'll try to cause as few drahmahz as possible.

1511:

How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and

1018:

828:

669:

442:

256:

814:

I have made statements and provided evidence (particularly in the Tango case), commented on workshop and proposed decision pages for a range of cases before the Arbitration Committee. I have never been a party, and have never filed a Request for Arbitration.

477:

I'm going to be a very different Arb than a lot of the other candidates. I don't have their backgrounds on-wiki; I've got a different perspective and skill set. However, this is pretty much my biggest selling point. So, dear readers, if you don't like it,

1042:

I have a lot of experience in matters arbcom deals with from my work at ANI, SSP/RFCU (over 700 cases), arb clerking, and arbitration enforcement. I feel my judgment had been generally sound and fair and I can help make wiki, including arbcom, better.

1506:

Because I have been one of the more outspoken critics of the way ArbCom is currently structured, and I've always been taught that if you want to criticize something, you better be willing to fix it. Plus ArbCom needs new viewpoints and new blood.

201:

Should I go inactive or be unable to discharge by arbcom duties in a timely manner, I will resign in order to allow another, more active arbitrator to take my place, thus allowing the committee as a whole to continue with a 'full team on the

961:

Earlier this year, I had no intention whatsoever of running for ArbCom, ever. Then several people started telling me that they wished I’d run for Arbcom, so I carefully studied the situation, and here I am accepting this great challenge.

261:

There is a tendency to focus on the occasional badly handled case, which gets a lot of negative press, and not on most of the cases the ArbCom handle, which are dealt with efficiently, promptly, and non-controversially. I have gone into

865:

other words, I have worked successfully with a broad range of contributors throughout the project. I have a strong interest in, and awareness of, privacy and personal security issues related to editing Knowledge, as can be seen in

1520:

What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it

1028:

850:

679:

459:

270:

468:

In general, by which I mean this is my opinion about the whole of ArbCom and most of the 'pedia, unless there's a good reason (such as privacy concerns) to keep something confidential, it's best to keep in out in the open.

376:, other arbitration, etc. While there's nothing wrong with this, I'd like to supply at least some sort of alternative. So, here I am, metaphorically standing as a candidate (I do most of my editing seated, to be honest). 628:

I don't really like the existence of 'Oppose' voting - so if you'd really really like to Oppose someone - make it me, and make me your only 'Oppose' vote - this too is important in my view, so please give it some thought.

569:

I've been fairly critical of arbcom on a number of levels for quite a while, and feel it's only fair to stick my hand up, and offer a few ideas as part of my candidature. This is a preliminary statement - there is more

586:

Arbcom has fallen way short of best practice on a number of levels, and in many ways we set up some of our best editors to fail... I'll be sharing more of my ideas about ways to fix some things, which I hope you may

990:

reputable reference work, not as a battlefield for vandals and POV-pushers; ArbCom needs to be firmer against these malefactors. I assure you that I will work to the best of my capacity and be as fair as possible.

1243:

negotiating consensus in difficult and/or innovative areas. So although I have had much to do with Wikipedian organisation in general, I have had little to do with ArbCom and thus come to this with a fresh mind.

643:

I'm a contributor to wikiversity, commons, and meta-wiki, as well as occasional activity at wikisource, and a dipped toe at simple - I an administrator on the WMF ChapCom wiki, my only official 'position' :-)

652:

I have followed many cases quite closely, commented in several, and was the subject of one. It's my belief that the arbcom is currently systemically flawed, and that we set up some of our best users to fail.

549: 223:

I have a solid record of contributions, both as an editor and as an administrator, which I believe show that I am dedicated to this project, and that my judgement is sound and that I can be trusted.

1345: 1210: 1235:

since February 2008; Milhist lead coordinator since March 2008; significant contributor to five featured articles; copy-editor for six more; dispute resolver; and intermittent wiki-gnome. See my

438:. This gives me a different perspective than them, and a different skill set. I'd been toying with the idea of running for a few months, and no one who looks like me was in yet, so here I am. 675:

internalised and resolved at all, in my view - a private internal committee vote, without an 'on wiki' arb process, banned another user shortly afterwards. If this concerns you... vote for me!

1434: 163: 355: 948: 772: 452: 1110: 192:

Vote on proposals promptly in an attempt to reach a consensus as quickly as possible, thus avoiding delays in closing cases and all the uncertainties involved for those concerned.

1496: 368:

Looking over the other candidates these past two weeks, I haven't seen all that much diversity in them. Pretty much all the strong candidates have lots of involvement at

1516:

I think they have made significant missteps on several cases (the Mantanmoreland one comes to mind). Others, I don't agree with, but can see where they're coming from.

448: 35: 1599: 451:, which had to come back to arbitration for a harder solution), it appears to be doing a fairly good job. For one I think was handled well, the resolution of 83: 1135:

Oh, and in the interests of full disclosure I'd just like to categorically state that I am not an alcoholic, a drunk maybe, but definitely NOT an alcoholic.

1480: 583:

I will stand for re-election after 1 year regardless of term lengths - if I'd like to go longer, I can stick my hand up again, and you will get to decide :-)

866: 702:

sole 'Oppose' vote - it's also my view that these are unhealthy for the community - and I'll take 'em on the chin with a smile :-) Vote Privatemusings!

1224:

transparency through excessive use of private space, and delay. I believe I am well-equipped for the job as I have considerable parallel experience.

842:

matter was a serious misstep. These two cases in particular have had a serious effect on community confidence in the committee. The development of the

1488: 843: 1591: 1584: 1572: 1566: 75: 68: 56: 50: 1484: 839: 213:

I have a level head and can make reasonable, commonsense decisions; I was described as "Steady, clueful, trustworthy" and "can be trusted" at my

1250:

spend the first month or so easing myself into arbitration, while I learn the ropes thoroughly and familiarise myself with what has gone before;

235:

I am an admin here on English Knowledge, an (inactive) admin at English Wikinews, as well as a sysop on an in-house Wiki we use at my company.

430:

I like the idea of giving the community a slightly more diverse choice. Unlike the other candidates, most of my on-wiki time is spent around

1232: 1175: 904: 835: 1551:

Privatemusings' first edit under previous usernames was on August 24, 2005. First edit under current username was on September 23, 2007.

1492: 1399: 597:! - I will respond to emails, discuss matters on my talk page, and post actively to case pages. I will be a dynamic arb where possible! 214: 128: 909: 384: 320: 1310: 737: 189:

Involve myself in a limited number of cases at first, in order to maximise the amount of attention that I can devote to each one.

1253:

use my position on the Arbitration Committee to work for greater transparency, a minimum of secrecy, and faster decision-making;

1459:

I see a more open Arbitration Committee coming. One more accountable to its users that elect it. One making wiser decisions.

698: 662: 571: 198:

Engage with any and all parties to ensure that both I and the arbcom as a whole remain accessible to the community at large.

455:, toothless as it is, is an elegant and clean solution (and it would have caused huge drahmahz pretty much any other way). 414:

Here, I'm an admin. I've got some accounts on other Wikimedia wikis, but none of them have many edits or any user rights.

1006:

I Gave evidence in the Footnoted Quotes and Sarah Palin wheel war cases, never a named party, arb clerk for several cases

177:

not lived up to the community's expectations. Knowledge needs a strong and decisive arbcom that can solve problems

1608: 26: 17: 786:

value and potential in freely sharing knowledge with the world, in a single, widely encompassing source.

665:

shortly, and I would be proud to be a new broom to clear out some of the many cobwebs around the arbcom.

1034:

exception not the norm. However, privacy should never be a veil to hide behind to avoid accountability.

1363:

Shell Kinney has not yet responded to questions. This page will be updated as answers are submitted.

1271:

Roger Davies has not yet responded to questions. This page will be updated as answers are submitted.

1132:

I am happy to answer any and all questions, though I can't guarantee that you'll like the answers.

966:

articles, 1 featured portal, and 1 featured list. Additional ArbCom-related areas I'm active in are

998:

Admin, Bureaucrat, Checkuser, arb clerk, ScoutingWikiProject coordinator, and admin on WikiCommons

220:

I believe that drama of any sort only hurts the project, and will take a strong stand against it.

1228: 1139:

RMHED has not yet responded to questions. This page will be updated as answers are submitted.

580:

I am not an admin - it is a 'good thing' to have a non-administrator representative on arbcom.

608:" - to this end I will ask questions, offer suggestions, and where necessary apply sanctions. 387:

earlier this year, has been spent around the various article deletion processes, at first

210:

I have a long editing record stretching back to 2004, free of any major disputes or drama.

8: 486: 435: 266:

on my questions page as to a couple of cases I thought could have been handled better.

1279: 1236: 1144: 1014:

Because users kept asking me too and I feel I can contribute positively in that role

600:

The two watch words of my approach (tatooed on the backs of my weary hands) will be "

1260: 1123:

I'm me, yes I can definitely confirm that. Been around Knowledge for quite a while.

614:- and the best content editors are the true kings of the wiki. This is important. 485: 1467: