Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:56, 18 November 2011

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Arbitration Committee/WMF Liaison

Original announcement

• A much-needed role! AGK 16:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• "As part of the role of the Liaison, Newyorkbrad and another member of the Committee, Coren, attended at the WMF offices on 4 November 2011 to meet with a number of staff in varying roles in order to discuss multiple issues." ← This could use a rewrite. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, one might possibly consider that remark to be more or less somewhat vague. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    • As you may or may not have noticed, the announcement might have mentioned that it's not entirely impossible that at some point in the future a more detailed report would be given. It might not be especially unreasonable, depending on a number of ill-specified circumstances, that one might understand from that assertion that the lack of resounding specificity in the original announcement might be thus explained. Or not. — Coren  03:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I meant that (paraphrased) "Newyorkbrad and Coren attended at the WMF offices on 4 November 2011 to meet with a number of staff..." doesn't parse correctly in my head. Maybe it's a Canadian English thing? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I believe "attend at" is an older or more formal usage, now somewhat archaic in American English, but more current in British (and I gather Canadian) usage, particularly when referring to turning up at a place as opposed to at an event ("the witness was ordered to attend at the Central Criminal Court"). More substantively, I do anticipate that further information about the meetings will follow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks, NYB; I genuinely had no idea what MZMcBride was on about there. Yes, "attended at" is a commonplace phrase in Canada, particularly in more formal writing. Risker (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Question - NYB is the liaison on the ArbCom side. Are you allowed to tell us who the liaison is on the WMF side? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 07:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes. It is User:Philippe (WMF). Risker (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 09:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Note

the WMF has two (and a backup). As noted by Risker, I am one, and Geoff Brigham is the other. Backing us up is Maggie Dennis, the community liaison. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• I would be very interested to hear what was discussed at the meeting. Any ETA on when that information will be posted? --Elonka 04:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, Brad has been inordinately (real-life) busy during the week after our meetings, so he didn't get a chance to report himself so we don't really have any "official" summary yet.

    The brief summary version is we talked about future handling of cases of harassment, child protection, and other really Bad Pepople (summary: they are now more proactive in seeking legal remedies and enforcing office bans but don't have the resources to do the initial work themselves and will continue to rely on the committee's help), information security, data retention, and new better infrastructure for privacy (summary: there are details left to work out but we've got good plans for soon and the foundation will give us the support we need), the details of the relationship between the arbcoms and the foundation (what they do, what we do, what happens if someone is sued). Other "smaller" things we talked about is handling of threats of harm, explained what the committees do to some of the staff less familiar with them, and a great deal of valuable "networking".

    Some of the details we cannot discuss yet because the actual decisions haven't yet been made, and some we'll not be able to discuss because it goes into too much detail regarding the WMF legal strategy (though I expect that Geoff himself may well wish to share some of it). This is all immensely superficial by necessity, but I expect that the committee's full report might be ready in a week or two. — Coren  14:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

    • Interesting, thanks. I look forward to the full report! --Elonka 17:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Coren's summary of the issues we discussed is completely accurate and substantially the same as what I would have written had I got to it first. I anticipate some follow-up on the various issues, from both the Committee side and the Office side, within the next couple of weeks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to BASC: Lee Nysted

Original announcement

• There seem to be quite a few of these of late. Is it because BASC is receiving an above-average number of appeals or just that I haven't been paying much attention, or something else? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, I think you are noticing the effect of a backlog being successfully beaten into submission (combined with, I think, a slightly higher than usual proportion of accepted appeals that is simple happenstance). — Coren  23:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

  Intersting; thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• I remember asking about statistics a while back, and got told they are on the way...can we get a status on that by chance? and just a question, how big of a backlog is there? (not like unblock-en-l has seen bigger in it's days) -- DQ (t) (e) 11:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I promised I would try and work on them and honestly haven't gotten around to it. If you keep pestering me, I might, but realistically it's probably going to be at the beginning of the new year. If there's demand for the stats I'd certainly like to oblige. As to the backlog, it varies greatly: usually it lags a bit until a few dedicated arbs get on top of things. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think there is an absolute rush, but by the new year I would prefer just for transparency reasons. And I can wait till the stats come out for specific backlog times as long as it's not killer. -- DQ (t) (e) 09:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Hopefully it will be much sooner... depends on how much work I made for myself by not labeling things originally. I hope that we get back to a regular posting schedule soon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Iridescent

Original announcement

• Sad to see her go. I may not have always agreed with Iridescent, but she is without a doubt one of the smartest Wikipedians I've ever come across. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Shame, Iridescent was espically insightful. Can only hope there are good reasons for her absence. Ceoil (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• We've certainly missed Iridescent's voice in the past few months. We understand that real life circumstances have to take priority, but that doesn't mean we stopped valuing Iridescent's opinions. I for one wish Iridescent well in all future endeavours. Risker (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• I am really, really sorry to hear this. She(?) was one arb who never lost the plot. The good news is that her(?) priorities are well-ordered; real life takes precedence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Could someone with a better memory than I tell me if Chase Me's asbsence was as long as Iridescent's? I'm not saying that Chase Me should have been kicked, quite the opposite, I think that Iridescent only got kicked because the elections are in progress. It irks me, even though I can marginally rationalize it. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• On the one hand the length of Iridescent's absence is on the short end of what I would normally consider removable inactivity, but on the other an opportunity to replace arbs only comes once a year. Assuming that she was given a reasonable chance to respond to queries, a week or so and not just a couple of days, this is the right thing to do. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• To be honest, I don't think that arbs who are currently up for re-election should have been allowed to vote on this resolution. Jenks24 (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• To answer a few questions related to this, the arbitration policy that included (for the first time) provisions for removing arbitrators for various reasons was ratified effective 13 June 2011. The policy went through many drafts, and consideration of including such a provision was in many of these drafts, dating all the way back to late 2008. Chase Me was absent for an extended period in early 2011, but returned to active participation about two weeks after the policy was ratified; thus, there was no motion to remove him from the Committee for inactivity. In Iridescent's case, despite a few edits to their user talk page, they have been essentially inactive in arbitration matters onwiki since June. Multiple efforts to contact Iridescent using every means that fellow committee members had at their disposal did not receive a response.

  As noted, the arbitration policy provides a means for removing an arbitrator who cannot "articipate conscientiously in the Committee's activities and deliberations", but it requires a "Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of arbitrators". Note that there is no built-in opportunity for committee members to recuse or claim "inactive status" for such a vote. An oversight, perhaps. Nonetheless, the vote was in accord with existing and recently ratified policy. Risker (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Considering that the decision was near unanimous, any idea that it was tactical is fanciful. My first reaction was, "eh? ye've removed an elected member ", but when I saw some of the names that voted in favour I was reassured. I know that there was unhappiness about inactive arbs a few years ago, and this is a factet of the reforms we have all been asking for for so long. Such a shame that it's Iridescent though, given she is so widely respected and so well endowed with clue. We are loosing good people all the time and it can be hard to take. Ceoil (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I can certainly assure everyone that Iridescent's performance as an arb was certainly appreciated, and that it's with regret we felt the need to make certain the seat was available before the elections rather than leave a committee that is already reduced with an empty seat.

    I don't think I breach any confidence when I assure everyone that Iri's inactivity was not entirely unforeseen and a consequence of other (positive) aspects of their life taking priority. — Coren  21:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) As will be seen from the vote, I concurred in the action that was taken; I don't think I will surprise anyone, though, in saying that I and the other arbitrators all hated to do it. Despite some disagreements between us (anyone interested can look at Iridescent's and my candidate questions pages last year for the background), I have the highest regard for Iridescent's level of cluefulness and insight into how Misplaced Pages works and how it should work. The quality of Iridescent's contributions to the Committee's discussions, when he was able to make them, was consistently superior.

Unfortunately, Iridescent's real-world commitments were such that his opportunities to make these contributions was minimal. In addition to the recent several months of inactivity, Iridescent was largely inactive for the first few months of the year as well; and although I haven't gone back and checked, I believe he only voted on two or three of the Committee's final decisions all year. I happen to believe that Iridescent himself would be the first to admit that this is not what he had in mind when he ran to be an arbitrator last year.

I hope that Iridescent will soon be able to return to editing Misplaced Pages, on whatever time schedule and at whatever level of commitment is right for him given his other commitments and responsibilities.

With regard to whether the arbitrators who are or may be candidates for reelection should have voted on this matter, I understand the theoretical concern that has been raised, but I do not believe their recusal was required or warranted. No reasonable observer would believe that these arbitrators, in deciding to declare this vacancy, were motivated by self-interest rather than regard for the best interests of the Committee, the community, and the encyclopedia.

Also, for the record—this is not the first time an elected arbitrator was removed from the Committee for inactivity; I believe previous examples include Flcelloguy and Filiocht. The current policy permits removal by vote of the Committee; the previous removals were simply directed by Jimbo Wales, although neither was controversial given the level of inactivity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand why it is that ArbCom finds it acceptable to treat the rest of us like idiots. The timing of Iridescent's disappearance stinks. 22:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs)

The recent RfC reduced the maximum number of arbitrators to 15, and this announcement came just before nominations opened for this year's elections; is it not entirely plausible that the Committee wanted to ensure that it started the new year at full strength rather than have diminished numbers compounded by inactivity that did not look like being ameliorated any time soon? Mind you, this wouldn't be the first time Wikipedians peculiar cognitive bias against humdrum or nonconspiratorial explanations manifested itself. Skomorokh 22:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You're talking about something else; I'm talking about the timing of Iridescent's disappearance. Try to keep up. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am quite sure I speak for the entire committee when I say that we would all have rather had Iridescent back active than need to have exercised the removal option. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait hold on Malleus. What are you complaining about? Iridescent's "disappearance?" The Committee's response? Is it to fast, or too slow? Too big or too small? Not transparent enough, or too overwrought in explanation? What exactly is it that you're complaining about in particular, or are you just complaining? Inquiring minds want to know.--Tznkai (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion might clarify what Malleus is saying. Looie496 (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Malleus let me be blunt - I believe you are well and truly barking up the wrong tree. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

To echo, Cas, Malleus: there's no reason for the timing except the obvious. We had been trying to contact Iri off and on for a long period; the elections simply forced us to act a little bit quicker, per reasons Skomorokh highlights. This isn't related to the leaks, or anything else other than simple activity levels. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's really quite nice to see that it is possible to turn any arbcom announcement into a conspiracy theory about something else. --Conti|✉ 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We haven't buried Iridescent under the patio, honest.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And I think this is one of those times. On the other hand, there's plenty of past experience (e.g., the Purloined Letters) showing that statements by arbitrators may require a certain discount from face value. So I can see the basis for Malleus's skepticism, though I believe he has pressed the point far enough. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Returning to the point about other arbs being inactive for long periods of time, what are the criteria used by the active arbitrators to initiate a removal motion? It would be useful when judging arbitrators on their records (including any standing for re-election) whether they had to be contacted about activity levels. At the least, I would expect any arbs standing for re-election to explain periods of absence and whether they were organised enough to inform their colleagues of such absences, or whether they went AWOL and had to be chased up by other arbs and politely asked when they intended to return to activity. I know from when I was on the committee that the latter happened far too often (the returns would be accompanied by profuse apologies, but the same thing would happen again the next time). Has that changed or not? Essentially, I'm looking for a way to judge arbitrators on their internal responsiveness, not just their public voting record. Carcharoth (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Short of releasing confidential correspondence (which we can't really do), I think the best bet is by asking parties directly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Question Why is Iridescent being described in the singular "they"? Surely Iridescent has identified him/herself as thus his/her gender is not in question. using the singular "they" makes me raise an eyebrow and want to know why it is being used. 134.241.58.240 (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Feel free to link to where Iridescent has identified Iridescent's gender on-wiki, and we can use one or the other, but I fear your assumption is unfounded, to the best of my knowledge. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

Original announcement

I'd like to thank the Committee for considering and approving this amendment. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)