[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikien-l
Subject:    [WikiEN-l] Fwd: BASC status and transparency
From:       Filipus Klutiero <chealer () gmail ! com>
Date:       2015-08-03 12:48:06
Message-ID: 55BF6306.2040504 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Following https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2015-August/111154.html I am \
hereby disclosing a message I sent to the BASC 2 months ago, which unfortunately \
remains entirely current AFAIK.

No one has indicated whether the bug is known or not.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	BASC status and transparency (was Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by \
                Chealer)
Date: 	Mon, 18 May 2015 16:25:21 -0400
From: 	Filipus Klutiero <chealer@gmail.com>
To: 	Chris McKenna <thryduulf.wiki@gmail.com>, English Arbitration Committee mailing \
list (appeals) <arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org>



Hi Chris,

On 2015-05-17 17:09, Chris McKenna wrote:
> Thank you for writing to us. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee will now consider your \
> appeal and report its decision to you in due course. The current turnaround time \
> for ban appeals can be checked at <http://enwp.org/WP:BASC#turnaround>. While I \
> appreciate that you would like more precision than that, we are unable to be more \
> specific as the length of time an appeal takes depends on many factors including \
> the availability of individual members of the committee and the specifics of the \
> appeal.

What I meant was not that a single measure was insufficient. I was just pointing out \
that as for any static document which contains "Currently", reliability is limited. \
Rather than "Currently, you can expect [...] ", this could read - for example - "As \
of December 2014, you can expect [...] ", or "Currently (last updated December 2014), \
you can expect [...] ". That would make appealing... more appealing ;-) In this case, \
one may get the information from page histories, but this is less trivial with \
templates.

While we're at it, according to our own article on tilde, the usage we make does not \
exist in English. Also, "you can expect" is vague - it would be best to say - for \
example - that the average time is x, or that the vast majority of appeals are \
processed in x, depending on what was meant (apparently the latter).

> We do not make appeals public as a matter of course as this is not normally in the \
> interests of all parties, and in some cases would compromise privacy.

I did not mean to say all cases should be entirely public - I can understand some \
privacy issues. But I do not see why a public process would not "normally" be "in the \
interest of all parties" - or at least, in the project's interest, which is what we \
should consider. Speaking for my case, it would certainly be at least in my interest \
for the appeal to be public.

Then again, if the subcommittee wants to keep some or all of its internal \
communications private, that is a lesser issue. Simply opening external \
communications would solve most of the transparency problems, including the one which \
prompted this discussion, i.e. the capacity of potential users to evaluate whether an \
appeal would be heard (and secondarily, how fast) without requiring someone else \
keeping an up-to-date assessment (though that could remain a useful indicator to get \
a quick idea). As a bonus, potential users could evaluate the appropriateness of \
appeal results.

I rarely (less than once a month on average) make a benevolent online contribution to \
a project if I cannot do so publically, unless that is due to exceptional \
circumstances (say a buggy ITS). As a radical transparency advocate, I may not be a \
reference, but I am surely not alone.

Of course, if you care about the possibility of appealing privately, supporting both \
options can complicate your work or require investment. I honestly believe though, \
that for a project which champions openness like Wikimedia, and for an activity as \
critical as ban management in an open wiki, this should be seriously considered. The \
WMF might be able to allocate resources to help implementing this.


Finally, regarding the submission problem I noted, my third attempt to submit worked, \
unlike the first 2 which failed quietly. Even though there was no error, and even \
though I had never used Email this user before, it was relatively obvious that \
submission had failed since there was no confirmation (and I had requested an email \
copy which did not arrive). Still, I am willing to help if that issue is unknown or \
not fully understood yet. I was using Debian 8's Iceweasel 31 in the first attempts. \
I made the successful attempt using Chromium, so this may be browser-specific.
> 
> [...]

> For the Ban Appeals Subcommittee,

Thank you
> 
> *---
> Chris McKenna (Thryduulf)*
> thryduulf.wiki@gmail.com <mailto:thryduulf.wiki@gmail.com>
> 
> Unless otherwise noted, opinions expressed in this email are solely my own and do \
> not necessarily represent the views of the Arbitration Committee as a whole. 
> On 17 May 2015 at 17:50, Chealer <chealer@gmail.com <mailto:chealer@gmail.com>> \
> wrote:

> [...]


-- 
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]