Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Elen of the Roads/Questions

General questions

 * 1) Skills/interests: Which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator? Your responses should indicate how your professional/educational background makes you suitable to the tasks.
 * 2) *(a) reviewing cases, carefully weighing up the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions;
 * 3) *(b) drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
 * 4) *(c) voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and motions for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
 * 5) *(d) considering appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or considering the Subcommittee's recommendations;
 * 6) *(e) overseeing the allocation and use of checkuser and oversight permissions, including the vetting and community consultation of candidates for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
 * 7) *(f) running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to CU if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
 * 8) *(g) carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators are generally also given OS privileges);
 * 9) *(h) drafting responses to inquiries and concerns forwarded to the Committee by editors;
 * 10) *(i) interacting with the community on public pages such as arbitration and other talk pages;
 * 11) *(j) performing internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming arbcom-l mailing list traffic.
 * A: I would be quite happy to perform any of the duties. I have had some experience with arbitration cases - the format, approach, stages etc, and the reviewing role is one I have built up in my career.  I draft fairly good prose - probably a bit wordy, and in British english, but still; and I do feel I'm fairly good at picking up the ins and outs of policies - and arguments.  Checkuser is the only one that gives me pause - all I can say is I'd need training, and to be honest, I'd probably only use it in an emergency unless I turned out to be good at it. The main reason Arbs are given CU and oversight access is to see evidence, not to perform the function, although I would step in if I was the only one minding the shop in an emergency.
 * 1) Stress: How will you be able to cope with the stress of being an arbitrator, potentially including on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass you by the public "outing" of personal information?
 * A: I've had a local 'public profile' for years - came with the job. The online world is scarier because of the size - and the ability of people to hide their identities in it. All I can say is that I have had stress before, and I'm still here. I don't have everything invested in Wikipedia (or my r/l job for that matter) - if everything is getting out of hand, I have family and real life to turn to.
 * 1) Principles: Assume the four principles linked to below are directly relevant to the facts of a new case. Would you support or oppose each should it be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? A one- or two-sentence answer is sufficient for each. Please regard them ''in isolation rather than in the context of their original cases.
 * 2) *(a) "Private correspondence"
 * A:I've never been convinced by the copyright argument, but I live and breathe in an environment with 'Data Protection' and 'Confidentiality of personal information' stamped all over it. Private correspondence - including emails - is private: sharing it with another authorised person in order to say carry out an investigation is one thing, but mailing your mates or posting them on the internet has got to be verboten.
 * 1) *(b) "Responsibility"
 * A:If I can't justify it, I shouldn't be doing it. Or if I did do it and I shouldn't have, I should be holding my hands up, apologising up front, and trying to sort out the mess. We are all expected to be responsible for our own behaviour in life, not just on Wikipedia. The second sentence reads a little strangely to me, but I believe is saying that certain activities (CU and oversight) have to be carried out with privacy in mind, not that you can use "The foundation made me do it" as an excuse.
 * 1) *(c) "Perceived legal threats"
 * A:I do see people reporting 'legal threats' where there are none (someone says 'defamatory' when they clearly just mean 'you're not taking me seriously') but barrack room lawyers (it's never real lawyers, they understand the futility of threatening to sue someone called User:Chimpsteaparty) can be a real pain, and very offputting to those who don't know whether to take them seriously. I would always ask an editor to change their language if it was a concern, or deal with threats in the prescribed manner.
 * 1) *(d) "Outing"
 * A:Wikipedia keeps a record of everything - unless you get it Revdeleted or Oversighted. So if you once put info out there, it's quite hard to get the genie back in the bottle. If someone finds it in Wikipedia's records, it can't be outing - if it's something you've kept off Wikipedia, that's different. If someone has removed identifying information then it would (in my opinion) be harrassment rather than outing to keep (say) referring to them by their real name, or making pointed references to where they come from, if they have asked you not to do it.
 * 1) Strict versus lenient: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?
 * A:I think I'm probably a bit of a soft touch for those who make the effort to try to communicate, and I do give second chances where possible. I'll hustle the average socking vandal out the door as fast as anyone, but it is hard to say 'Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - except you' to someone who ought to be a great editor except.... Sometimes it's the only way though - removing the edit warriors allows everyone else to reach consensus, removing the bullies encourages the quieter members, and the converse of not dealing with it means that the quiet and the collegiate abandon the effort, and the project suffers.
 * With regard to desysopping, I think I take a slightly different view. Admins do need protection from those they piss off by legitimate actions (I've had enough customers make complaints about me after advising them that they did really owe the money etc), but I think it's one of the areas where Wikipedia is moving between models, and some admins are developing a higher profile than was originally envisaged when the notion of the mop was born. Going back to (b) above, admins are supposed to know how to use the tools, and know the policies they are enforcing, and not abuse them: behaviour that I would find particularly worrying would be partisan actions, using tools in a dispute, using tools against the rules and to the admin's benefit or to the benefit of 'their side'. I also don't like the way some admins are very rude - I think it makes it hard for users to respect them - but I recognise a cultural aspect to that.
 * An emergency desysop (or rather a request for one, as it actually has to be carried out by a steward) is only warranted if there is a genuine emergency. Does the account appear to be compromised? Has it tried to delete the mainpage or block Jimbo? Have you tried blocking it, and it's unblocked itself and carried on.  That kind of stuff.  In other circs, admins can agree to hand over the bit - although normally they would make the request themselves. The other way I suppose would be a recall process, but the current one is so broken I would never contemplate requesting a desysop based on the outcome of a recall discussion. If an admin wants to go down that route, they can request it themselves.
 * 1) ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community". Please give reasons.
 * A:Bear with me here - I'm going to refer to English law. I would not ever expect Arbcom in its current form to turn up with some newly minted policy and say 'all the girls have to have pink sigs from now on,' or be going into discussions and laying down the law on what is a reliable source etc, and I would expect the community to resist this very strongly if they tried. However, t seems to me that Arbcom functions as a form of administrative justice*: it hears cases and makes decisions.  The community is still nervous about this, as it is a departure from the original Athenian practices, and part of the function of a court and judiciary (however named) is to 'make' the Common law both by reinforcing and interpreting precedent, and by creating precedent where it encounters a novel situation. From this viewpoint, it is inevitable - indeed it is built into the process  - that Arbcom will form, create, amend and even by a process of gradual downgrading abolish policy. I think it is vitally important that Arbcom recognise and understand this - I think we are already seeing examples of where Arbcom is instigating new processes that are driving new policies - I'm thinking WP:ARBPIA WP:DIGWUREN, the whole WP:AE thing which constrains the actions of admins; and if it is not understood, it is likely to cause greater unease in sections of the community.
 * *administrative justice - a European concept which recognises that bodies such as ombudsmen occupy the first step on a ladder of judicial (or quasi-judicial) processes.
 * 1) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve?
 * A:Arbcom cannot rule on content from any position of greater expertise than any other competent editor, so directly saying "Foo is right here, put that in the article" has to be beyond its scope. Its focus has to be rather on some method of achieving content stability (and a better editing experience) where the matter cannot be solved just by going for more sources, either because the wheel is still in play and it is unclear which sources will turn out to be right; or because the sources themselves are written from irreconcilable viewpoints. The problem with the first scenario is that the consensus will change as events change on the ground, and that must be factored in: 'stability' here is more like thixotropy - its fine as long as you don't shake it too much.
 * 1) Success in handling cases: Nominate the cases from 2010 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * A:Speed of light - good job in wading through the physics, but the decision somehow turned into a bit of a dog's breakfast, people alleging lack of clarity (or trying to game the system, depending on your POV) in the restrictions, endless follow up reports at ANI, about four goes round for Brews Ohare, and in the end of it, he's just ended up banned.
 * Ottava Rima] on the other hand was a horrible case (I was involved in it) because it involved a well established editor, very prolific, created scholarly content, but no-one it seemed could work with him. But the case was very well structured and well clerked, and I thought the Arbs looked at it very fairly.
 * Gibraltar was also a good piece of work. This is a 300 year old dispute! and it does seem to have damped it down a good deal, and we're not seeing the explosion of challenges that there were to Speed of Light or more recently Climate change, which again, although a good piece of investigative work, has had issues with the drafting of the final outcomes resulting in additional 'go rounds' to clarify (/attempts to game the outcome depending on your viewpoint).
 * 1) Proposals for change? What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
 * A:If the elections succeed in finding a workable number of electable folks, the possibility exists of forming arbitration teams, rather than having every Arb involved in every case. This would help with workload, and would have the useful added feature that it would be possible to conduct reviews with a different set of people, should this be required.  It's common for 'governing bodies' like school governors to organise themselves in this way. I believe Arbcom is looking at different patterns of working, to prevent burnout/implosion, so there is clearly scope for discussion.

Individual questions
This section is for individual questions asked to this specific candidate. Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below. The question should:
 * be clearly worded and brief, with a limit of 75 words in display mode;
 * be specific to this candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages);
 * not duplicate other questions (editors are encouraged to discuss the merging of similar questions);

Election coordinators will either remove questions that are inconsistent with the guidelines or will contact the editor to ask for an amendment. Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time.

Please add the question under the line below using the following format: -
 * 1) Question:
 * A:
 * 1) Question: In recent months, there have been instances when blocks on civility grounds to significant content contributors to the encyclopedia have been summarily overturned by an administrator, generally without consultation with the blocking administrator. What is your view about such blocks (and unblocks!), and what, if anything, do you believe ArbCom needs to do to address concerns about such blocks/unblocks?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A:Sandstein asked something similar at RfA, and I gave an answer based on personal opinion here - basically it annoys me when an admin overturns while the community are discussing it, and often where there is no unblock template. I don't think it's a recent phenomenon - I've seen it for over a year - and it's not always to do with civility, but it usually is, as that's a real 'in the opinion of the umpire' grounds for a block. It is concerning as it does give the appearance that the unblocking admin is ignoring the community, it can give the appearance of partisanship, and it makes us look like a zoo. As to what I would do about it - as an admin, I wouldn't do it. I might have an opinion, but if a community discussion has started, I'd wait for a consensus to form.
 * As a potential Arb, I think we may need a better review mechanism for contentious 'umpire's opinion' blocks that end up with an ANI discussion - yes, it's more process, and it is taking away from the autonomy of individual admins, but if there was a way to flag 'this block is the subject of a community review - do not change it without community approval', that would be moving towards it. In this kind of block, I don't think that just talking to the blocking editor is enough - such blocks usually attract community interest, and it is the community that is affected by an unreasonable block on a productive editor, or a bad unblock on an out-of-order one. (In a normal block review, one would normally talk to the blocking editor unless they had indicated it was unnecessary, not sure if you were asking for an answer specifically to that).
 * As an editor, I think we need a better approach generally to tackling civility issues - blocking someone in full offensive rant is one thing, but I frequently see blocks applied for one-off instances, well after the individuals have separated and with no indication that the 'offender' is about to get stuck into it again. In those settings, a block can only be punitive - 'You have been blocked because you have said that on Wikipedia', not preventative 'You have been blocked because you have said that and are likely to keep on saying it.'  We have not really addressed the preventative/punitive yet with regard to this area - the need to tackle those who persistently bully/abuse (which may not cross the line into ad hominem attack, but which must be stopped in the interests of collegial editing), and the need to find a way of managing those that have gone off with a bang in the course of a heated argument - do not necessarily require the same solution.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question:In your answer to question 8 above, you mentioned using "arb teams" to expedite the process. Don't you think this would lead to wikilawyering over which arbs decide which case?  Or users dissatisfied with the outcome asking for another case because of who was on their team?   DC   T • C   16:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A:In the manner of DAs and defence lawyers jockeying for a sympathetic judge, you mean? I can see that happening here if the teams formed up in an ad-hoc manner, the way that school governors form exclusion appeal teams (quick ring round, who is available tomorrow afternoon).  The answer I would imagine would be a roster - teams are listed in advance, next case, next team (unless there is an issue with recuses). Team votes to accept or not, if not, team rejoins availability, if accept, team then goes to the back of the roster. In a big case, it may be necessary to assign two teams, or have a second team join at the end of the evidence stage.  If a team is very tied up in a case, they may get to skip a turn. (I'm kind of envisaging managing this being a clerk function). Yes, people might still wait until a 'preferred' team comes up on the roster, but I don't think there's much can be done about that other than see that the teams represent a cross section of opinions (where such exist). Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) You mentioned "Arbcom is instigating new processes that are driving new policies". Could you elaborate on features of these Arbcom-instigated processes make dispute resolution successful, and discuss potential areas for improvement? (If it helps... Envision a topic area where ArbCom has asked editors in the past to stabilize the conflict with a guideline, but it has been difficult due to hyper partisanship... and thus a somewhat familiar group of editors end up at ArbCom again.) Shooterwalker (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: OK, let me know if this answers your question. At the end of 2006, a case was determined on the subject of Pseudoscience. A principle was established about what besides the clearly loopy could be described as 'pseudoscience'.  Editor x was cautioned to be more civil "when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science" and presumably everyone hoped that was the end of it. July 2007 saw another case Paranormal where the principle was modified to make it clear that you needed sources to say that something was pseudoscience. This did not halt the problem however. Come Nov 2007, and Paranormal round 2, editor X is going at it with editor Y.  Editor X is subject to a civility parole for one year, and editor Y was "subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. " Unfortunately, this did not have the desired effect and only resulted in more arguments and wikilawyering about the specifics of the restriction.
 * In October 2007, Arbcom created what I believe was the first general sanction,in the Macedonia case . This is the first sanction that allowed an univolved admin to on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures 
 * The intention was to cut out the wikilawyering and pushing on the edges of sanctions imposed as a result of arbitrations. In May 2008, Arbcom created by motion                                  a discretionary sanction for the old Pseudoscience case.   This is the point at which things start to come under control.  No longer is it necessary to start another case.  In June 2008   sanctions - really quite drastic ones - are imposed on editor Y following a complaint at ANI, and the log in the case history shows numerous editors being warned and sanctioned.
 * Since then, these discretionary general sanctions have become standard in cases where it is the topic rather than the editors that are the problem, and we have also seen the community start to impose the same restrictions both on topics and individual editors who keep appearing at ANI. These new tools in the admin and community toolboxes have I believe been generally beneficial to community governance, as they empower the community to do something when everyone can see that there is a problem, without someone having to take a case to Arbcom.
 * As to improvements, I note Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change which is a tailored set, superceding the community sanctions previously imposed. One of the things this set of sanctions is trying to deal with is that a number of administrators are actually involved in the dispute, and the sanctions have been forced to specify which administrators may not make rulings using the sanctions, and what mechanisms must be used if challenging rulings made under the sanctions.  It remains to be seen whether this approach is an improvement, and whether we will see more of it. Issues regarding administrators involved in disputes in this way is something that I think needs to be tackled, but whether naming (and by extension shaming - when did you stop beating your spouse?) in this oblique way is the way to go requires more of a discussion on the lines I mentioned in an answer above "it's one of the areas where Wikipedia is moving between models, and some admins are developing a higher profile than was originally envisaged when the notion of the mop was born." Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent answer from the standpoint of clarity and logic. I wish other ArbCom candidates, no matter what their opinion is on any issue, would be so thorough. As to whether I agree is sort of beside the point :) although I'm sure you can guess. Good luck! Shooterwalker (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from BorisG (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Don't you think an ArbCom member should have made substantial contribution to article content, including many FA and good articles? Why do you think your experience on Wikipedia is sufficient, both in duration and in content contribution?
 * A: I think it is important that all ArbCom members have some experience of creating content, because it is hard to understand the frustrations if you have never tried to work on an article with another editor who doesn't share your view. I don't think people who haven't tried realise how long it takes to create well written, properly sourced, properly laid out content - throwing about remarks about WP:OWN can look very pointy from the perspective of the editor who thinks he's confronted with Randy in Boise. I'm immensely proud of High Shear Mixer - still have it on my watchlist, and am delighted every time an engineering-minded editor comes along and adds another sentence. But not everybody is up to writing FAs (or facing SandyGeorgia and her team to get FA awarded). I even did my degree in a subject where you had to give practical answers not sourced essays. Wikipedia needs many skills to keep it going - those who tirelessly play whackamole with IP vandals, those who offer advice to the newcomer, those who take pictures, those who sweep out the crap articles, those who put things in the right category... I think St Paul probably said it best - the feet can't say they have no use for the eye, the mouth needs the hand (sorry, don't usually quote the Bible, but that is quite apt).
 * As to experience, I've had enough time on Wikipedia to understand how it works, its underlying aims, its policies, and a little of how it got some of those policies. It is  a great experiment in the collective management of a large enterprise, which started without any of the underlying theory of the soviets, or the unifying challenges of the kibbutzim, and I want to see it succeed.  Arbcom's role is primarily as a court of last resort in dispute resolution - I've got a lot of experience in dispute resolution, and most of it is applicable to Wikipedia.  That's my contribution - that's what I want to offer the project. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: I'm interested in the role of Jimbo Wales, not least w r t arbcom. To help you avoid beautiful abstractions, I'll put a concrete case: If you were an arb, what—just summarily—would your contribution and your votes have been in this RFAR? (Epilogue to the case here.) Feel free to skip this one if you find it hopelessly TLDR at this busy time, and I'll come haunt your dreams instead. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
 * A: I've looked at this before. If you're OK with this method of answering, I'd like to go through the principles I think apply here, as it struck me as an example of where failure to follow your own rules because you think you can achieve a better result by another method, just opens up a pit at your feet.
 * First problem was a failure to deal with it quickly. I see it so often, people aren't sure what to do so they do nothing.  It's fatal.  The request didn't need to sit for a week while some behind the scenes fannying about allegedly went on - Arbcom should have either said "No, this is not suitable.  Go away and settle it between yourselves" or "Yes, we accept it. Please remember that you are still able to settle it between yourselves." (For reference, just to show that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, the Local government ombudsman  will often take a complaint, and at an early stage, while asking the local authority involved to give their side of what happened, will also suggest that a local settlement could be arranged between the parties while the council is drawing up its response).
 * Next, the impression was given that Arbcom - as Arbcom - was attempting to broker a solution. While one understands its desire to do so, it is not in the remit of Arbcom to do this - it is supposed to refer a dispute back to mediation if it feels that would help. Individuals concerned might appropriately as individuals have attempted mediation, but the committee should not have waited for the outcome of these personal endeavours.
 * Third is a basic principle for complaint handlers - do not set out merely to justify the position of the organisation. Arbcom's role is to act as a court or tribunal, not as a government spokesperson. Wikipedia is working its way through how to relate to its founder, and Arbcom's decision to act in the way that it did feels very much like a throwback to an earlier phase of the relationship.
 * Last one is to do with remedy. If Mrs Miggins doesn't get her bins emptied for a month, and at the same time the performance of the Cleansing manager is being called into question to such an extent that the Chief Exec offers him the pearl-handled revolver, the one is not necessarily a remedy for the other. Without that full investigation, it is hard to say in the time available to me now whether this warranted a wet fish or a desysop, but the way the answer was given, its as if the committee is saying "well, now look at what you've made Jimbo go and do."
 * So I would have recommended (a) being clear on the role of Arbcom (b)sticking to the terms of reference (c)acting quickly. This might have resulted (as one option)in an immediate acceptance as a referral of an apparently bad admin decision, given that in the background, serious discussion in the Council Chamber is taking place. A decision might have been swifty reached that a full case was not warranted - there being few facts and those quickly evaluated. An early motion could then follow, which might have concluded that this was a dubious block, made worse by the blocking admin being rude to the blockee, and then attempting to play it down when he realised he'd made the wrong call.  Result: a wet fish for the blocking admin, with a recommendation that he (a) consider an apology in order, and (b) be way more circumspect in future. The blockee to receive the usual advice about walking away/leaving the situation to others when the temperature rises. Meanwhile those other discussions result in that prime ministerial announcement by Jimbo that he has decided that it is inappropriate for him to continue to use admin powers on the English Wikipedia, since it is now obvious that in the changed climate, his actions are no longer regarded as simply those of an admin.  There are other options and permutations that might possibly have arisen - I wasn't there, and most of the conversations clearly took place elsewhere, so this is only one suggestion in keeping with the principles outlined above.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: You have an interest in governance. What role ought governance play in the resolution of high order content or taxonomic disputes?  Is current governance successful in this area?  What role ought domain specific content expertise play in the governance of adjudicating content disputes? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: Interesting question, because this is probably the one area where some kind of governance is more readily envisagable. As I recall, it was an argument about the correct title for the Byron article that was the final straw for Ottava Rima. If there had been more certainty about the 'official status' of the structured title, maybe things might have turned out differently. However, I note that the article has ended up renamed to Lord Byron, as the community has effectively come to a consensus of which of two competing notions - the use of a structured format and the use of the most common name - is the one to use. However, I am not convinced that it requires Arbcom to rule on this.  I recently had some conversation with Wikiproject Gastropods (about a bot), and it was clear that they have access to a sourced taxonomy - which is in somewhat of a state of flux.  In attempting to resolve a dispute about the correct scientific name of a particular slug or snail, it was readily evident that one would actually have to know something about the taxonomy, the source, and what was causing the state of flux, and this would be a challenge for the Reliable sources noticeboard as well as for any mediator in the case of a dispute. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: Is Wikipedia's core community sufficiently aware and respectful of the experiences of its female contributors? Does Wikipedia have a problem with a patriarchal culture?   Skomorokh   19:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A:I would associate patriarchy with a view that women are not fitted for certain roles, not capable of certain tasks (didn't someone once make a famous statement equating women who enter politics and dogs who play the piano). What I have seen more of is I suspect the flip side - the response of men who feel threatened by women at some fundamental level (about 6-8 inches below the navel I suspect), but are not able to deal with it by excluding them. In the 1970's, it never ceased to amaze me that such apparently respectable clerics could utter such lewd filth towards proponents of the ordination of women, something that was often put down at the time to such clerics having issues with their sexuality. That may or may not have been true in that case, but a long-time editor and admin referring to me as a 'cowgirl' recently did rather bring memories back. I was concerned that after that incident, a number of female editors contacted me with what they felt were similar experiences. I think it adds an extra layer of nastiness in disputes.
 * A lot of editors of course choose to edit without revealing their gender, as is their right, but I would not like to think that anyone felt they had to obscure their gender to receive a hearing. I have noticed also a 'lads culture' in some corners of the wiki, and an expectation that editors will not find this offensive - use of silly jokes, dubious language etc. Doesn't amount to enough to bring a charge against, but some editors find it uncomfortable.  Mind you, this is an issue for more than just women - I've pointed out several times recently that editors from other cultures are more sensitive over cussing, for example.  There's still something of a perception that wikipedia is a technical project, that those who work on it are techies or geeks, which I think contributes to the 'lads culture' aspect as well.
 * It is something to keep an eye on - we should have a higher proportion of women editors than we do (even allowing that a percentage will keep their gender private), and anything that reduces the number we already have is a concern. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: I've assembled a set of questions for the 12 candidates listed here. The questions are intended to see how you would respond to situations you will probably encounter if elected. I've picked one question for each candidate listed at the link above; the other questions can be seen here. Please feel free to answer only the selected question below, or all of them if you chose. Your question is what would you do in the following situation?: "An e-mail arrives at the mailing list requiring an 'emergency' response and you are the only arbitrator around". Carcharoth (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A:First day on the job as an admin, the gadget toolbar is now offering me 20 new options and I have no idea what any of them do, I'm terrified of blocking myself or deleting the mainpage, and Baseball Bugs turns up at ANI with what he insists is a serious matter of outing that needs an instant revision delete. There have been no admins editing ANI in the last hour, and the out-er is posting names, dates and packdrill, including links to an extremely dodgy website.  A quick read of the Revdel policy, tentatively working through the interface, and the edits are gone at least. Report back to the board, keep monitoring the situation (partially in case I've screwed up) - few hours later the out-er is throwing around allegations of a very nasty nature, and I get to issue my first block.  Fortunately I'm familiar with the policy I'm blocking him under, and I manage not to block myself or anyone else as collateral.
 * So, lively first day, but I think it illustrates the principle. I'm assuming this is not an emergency for which there is a laid down procedure I just follow - eg someone has emailed Arbcom about a suicide threat. Those go straight to WMF emergency email, as the Foundation has requested. I'm not that lucky, so first, check that I really am the only one around. Second, check that it really is an emergency, not just something that someone is pressing to have dealt with quickly (my team get a lot of that - people who want an answer in an hour on a situation where really nothing is going to happen if it takes them a week). Third, ensure Ihave a good grasp of what's going on. Act on half a tale and you've at least a 50% chance of doing the wrong thing. Then, identify the minimum action necessary to prevent serious consequences*. Identify whether I actually have the power/authority/knowledge to take that action - what are the policies etc. Is it a reversible action (the person involved in the "Randy from Boise outing incident" ended up looking rather foolish, but at least they were able to put all the edits back. Deciding to send copies of everything to The Guardian newsdesk is kinda irreversible).  Finally - take that minimum action, if I have concluded that it requires a minimum action.  Then be prepared to communicate with the rest of the Arbs (who hopefully by now will have recovered from whatever local festival they were celebrating) follow up, monitor the situation, face the consequences.
 * I can't think of a purely on-wiki emergency that could have sufficiently serious consequences to cause me to want to act unilaterally at the moment, so I'm thinking something that could have an impact on someone in real life - outing, revealing personal information, maybe threat of releasing information to a third party. Does this answer your question?
 * Just to clarify on that - if the editor has directed to the mailing list something that could be dealt with by any admin, then obviously if someone has replaced the featured picture with a goatse, or gone on a vandalism spree through a load of prominent articles, I'm going to take some action, but I'd probably recommend the editor not use this route again. For misdirected requests for routine admin action, I'd probably just send them to the right place with appropriate explanation, as I wouldn't want them to keep using the mailing list for things we already have lists/noticeboards etc in place for.
 * Note, I've put the other questions on talkpage, and will post shorter answers there.
 * Thanks, Elen, both for the answer to the question I posed above, and the other answers on the talk page. The answer above was fine as far as I'm concerned, and I'm about to read the other answers now and will comment further there if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: To what extent, if any, do you believe the Fringe theories guideline is increasingly used as a tool/device with which one or a small group of editors will strive to label a legitimate aspect "fringe", in order to exclude aspects of a subject from an article that should otherwise cover them? –Whitehorse1 22:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A:Interesting question. Fringe seems to have arisen to deal with situations where a view disregards mainstream scholarly thinking but has popular support (the pyramids were built by spacemen, Jack the Ripper was a member of the UK royal family, Princess Diana was murdered by Prince Philip etc).  It has big issues with things like Creation Science (or whatever it is calling itself these days), Young earth history etc because a lot of people want these things to be true for non-scientific but very powerful reasons.  "Fringe medicine" is another problem, because not only do things like homeopathy and chiropractic enjoy popular support, some medical men are prepared to offer support for them.
 * But all of those can ultimately be dealt with by sources. Where I think the project is struggling, and where fringe can be misused, is where actually no-one knows the full answer yet, so it is impossible to know which sources will turn out to be reliable. And yes, I am thinking of the entire climate change field here.  It seems to me as an intelligent observer that this is an area where the fringe is further "out there" than groups of editors on all sides want to put it. I don't know if that's what you had in mind.
 * You approached it from a different angle than I had in mind originally, but that's okay. Thank you for your response. –Whitehorse1 23:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A:I would associate patriarchy with a view that women are not fitted for certain roles, not capable of certain tasks (didn't someone once make a famous statement equating women who enter politics and dogs who play the piano). What I have seen more of is I suspect the flip side - the response of men who feel threatened by women at some fundamental level (about 6-8 inches below the navel I suspect), but are not able to deal with it by excluding them. In the 1970's, it never ceased to amaze me that such apparently respectable clerics could utter such lewd filth towards proponents of the ordination of women, something that was often put down at the time to such clerics having issues with their sexuality. That may or may not have been true in that case, but a long-time editor and admin referring to me as a 'cowgirl' recently did rather bring memories back. I was concerned that after that incident, a number of female editors contacted me with what they felt were similar experiences. I think it adds an extra layer of nastiness in disputes.
 * A lot of editors of course choose to edit without revealing their gender, as is their right, but I would not like to think that anyone felt they had to obscure their gender to receive a hearing. I have noticed also a 'lads culture' in some corners of the wiki, and an expectation that editors will not find this offensive - use of silly jokes, dubious language etc. Doesn't amount to enough to bring a charge against, but some editors find it uncomfortable.  Mind you, this is an issue for more than just women - I've pointed out several times recently that editors from other cultures are more sensitive over cussing, for example.  There's still something of a perception that wikipedia is a technical project, that those who work on it are techies or geeks, which I think contributes to the 'lads culture' aspect as well.
 * It is something to keep an eye on - we should have a higher proportion of women editors than we do (even allowing that a percentage will keep their gender private), and anything that reduces the number we already have is a concern. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: I've assembled a set of questions for the 12 candidates listed here. The questions are intended to see how you would respond to situations you will probably encounter if elected. I've picked one question for each candidate listed at the link above; the other questions can be seen here. Please feel free to answer only the selected question below, or all of them if you chose. Your question is what would you do in the following situation?: "An e-mail arrives at the mailing list requiring an 'emergency' response and you are the only arbitrator around". Carcharoth (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A:First day on the job as an admin, the gadget toolbar is now offering me 20 new options and I have no idea what any of them do, I'm terrified of blocking myself or deleting the mainpage, and Baseball Bugs turns up at ANI with what he insists is a serious matter of outing that needs an instant revision delete. There have been no admins editing ANI in the last hour, and the out-er is posting names, dates and packdrill, including links to an extremely dodgy website.  A quick read of the Revdel policy, tentatively working through the interface, and the edits are gone at least. Report back to the board, keep monitoring the situation (partially in case I've screwed up) - few hours later the out-er is throwing around allegations of a very nasty nature, and I get to issue my first block.  Fortunately I'm familiar with the policy I'm blocking him under, and I manage not to block myself or anyone else as collateral.
 * So, lively first day, but I think it illustrates the principle. I'm assuming this is not an emergency for which there is a laid down procedure I just follow - eg someone has emailed Arbcom about a suicide threat. Those go straight to WMF emergency email, as the Foundation has requested. I'm not that lucky, so first, check that I really am the only one around. Second, check that it really is an emergency, not just something that someone is pressing to have dealt with quickly (my team get a lot of that - people who want an answer in an hour on a situation where really nothing is going to happen if it takes them a week). Third, ensure Ihave a good grasp of what's going on. Act on half a tale and you've at least a 50% chance of doing the wrong thing. Then, identify the minimum action necessary to prevent serious consequences*. Identify whether I actually have the power/authority/knowledge to take that action - what are the policies etc. Is it a reversible action (the person involved in the "Randy from Boise outing incident" ended up looking rather foolish, but at least they were able to put all the edits back. Deciding to send copies of everything to The Guardian newsdesk is kinda irreversible).  Finally - take that minimum action, if I have concluded that it requires a minimum action.  Then be prepared to communicate with the rest of the Arbs (who hopefully by now will have recovered from whatever local festival they were celebrating) follow up, monitor the situation, face the consequences.
 * I can't think of a purely on-wiki emergency that could have sufficiently serious consequences to cause me to want to act unilaterally at the moment, so I'm thinking something that could have an impact on someone in real life - outing, revealing personal information, maybe threat of releasing information to a third party. Does this answer your question?
 * Just to clarify on that - if the editor has directed to the mailing list something that could be dealt with by any admin, then obviously if someone has replaced the featured picture with a goatse, or gone on a vandalism spree through a load of prominent articles, I'm going to take some action, but I'd probably recommend the editor not use this route again. For misdirected requests for routine admin action, I'd probably just send them to the right place with appropriate explanation, as I wouldn't want them to keep using the mailing list for things we already have lists/noticeboards etc in place for.
 * Note, I've put the other questions on talkpage, and will post shorter answers there.
 * Thanks, Elen, both for the answer to the question I posed above, and the other answers on the talk page. The answer above was fine as far as I'm concerned, and I'm about to read the other answers now and will comment further there if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: To what extent, if any, do you believe the Fringe theories guideline is increasingly used as a tool/device with which one or a small group of editors will strive to label a legitimate aspect "fringe", in order to exclude aspects of a subject from an article that should otherwise cover them? –Whitehorse1 22:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A:Interesting question. Fringe seems to have arisen to deal with situations where a view disregards mainstream scholarly thinking but has popular support (the pyramids were built by spacemen, Jack the Ripper was a member of the UK royal family, Princess Diana was murdered by Prince Philip etc).  It has big issues with things like Creation Science (or whatever it is calling itself these days), Young earth history etc because a lot of people want these things to be true for non-scientific but very powerful reasons.  "Fringe medicine" is another problem, because not only do things like homeopathy and chiropractic enjoy popular support, some medical men are prepared to offer support for them.
 * But all of those can ultimately be dealt with by sources. Where I think the project is struggling, and where fringe can be misused, is where actually no-one knows the full answer yet, so it is impossible to know which sources will turn out to be reliable. And yes, I am thinking of the entire climate change field here.  It seems to me as an intelligent observer that this is an area where the fringe is further "out there" than groups of editors on all sides want to put it. I don't know if that's what you had in mind.
 * You approached it from a different angle than I had in mind originally, but that's okay. Thank you for your response. –Whitehorse1 23:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Elen, both for the answer to the question I posed above, and the other answers on the talk page. The answer above was fine as far as I'm concerned, and I'm about to read the other answers now and will comment further there if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: To what extent, if any, do you believe the Fringe theories guideline is increasingly used as a tool/device with which one or a small group of editors will strive to label a legitimate aspect "fringe", in order to exclude aspects of a subject from an article that should otherwise cover them? –Whitehorse1 22:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A:Interesting question. Fringe seems to have arisen to deal with situations where a view disregards mainstream scholarly thinking but has popular support (the pyramids were built by spacemen, Jack the Ripper was a member of the UK royal family, Princess Diana was murdered by Prince Philip etc).  It has big issues with things like Creation Science (or whatever it is calling itself these days), Young earth history etc because a lot of people want these things to be true for non-scientific but very powerful reasons.  "Fringe medicine" is another problem, because not only do things like homeopathy and chiropractic enjoy popular support, some medical men are prepared to offer support for them.
 * But all of those can ultimately be dealt with by sources. Where I think the project is struggling, and where fringe can be misused, is where actually no-one knows the full answer yet, so it is impossible to know which sources will turn out to be reliable. And yes, I am thinking of the entire climate change field here.  It seems to me as an intelligent observer that this is an area where the fringe is further "out there" than groups of editors on all sides want to put it. I don't know if that's what you had in mind.
 * You approached it from a different angle than I had in mind originally, but that's okay. Thank you for your response. –Whitehorse1 23:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You approached it from a different angle than I had in mind originally, but that's okay. Thank you for your response. –Whitehorse1 23:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)