Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Casliber/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}

---

---

Question from Smallbones

2. Thanks for putting your candidacy forward.
   Wikipedia is starting to have a reputation for bullying and misogyny, see, e.g the recent article in The Atlantic by Emma Paling, "Wikipedia's Hostility to Women”.
   Are you willing to take serious steps to stop bullying of editors on Wikipedia? especially bullying directed toward women editors? Is this one of your top 2 priorities? What would you consider to be a more important priority than stopping the bullying? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

   I don't like the idea of ranking priorities. I think it is up there with ensuring the integrity of the encyclopedia, retention of editors and conflict resolution, yes. These issues are not conflicting or mutually exclusive.

Followup

2. In the Signpost candidate survey, you responded to the statement "(Q) ArbCom has treated men more sympathetically than women" with mild disagreement, 3 on a scale of 7, where 4 is neutral and 1 would be complete disagreement. Did you make a mistake in entering your answer? I interpret a 3 as saying you think men are treated as slightly worse by ArbCom then women. Is that your true position?

   No. I answered "3" as I disagree with the statement as stated. It does not imply the opposite truth. I can see how you'd interpret numbers, I just did so differently. My impression is that men and women are treated equally by the arbitration committee in decision making. Note this interpretation has no relation to events that happen elsewhere before (or after) arbitration.

Question from Yash!

2. In the past couple of years, the ArbCom has closed various cases, passed motions, and such. Is/Are there any outcome/s that you disagree with? If yes, which? And, what result/s would you have rather preferred? Yash! 09:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

   I have only looked sporadically in the past two years, and will have a look back in a minute. In general I am dismayed if there has been a substantive content dispute with no examination of how editors are using sources (an example might be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence where some concerns are raised yet none find their way onto Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Proposed decision. Now it might be that no-one was warping or misusing references....or it might be that they were and it was not followed up. I don't know. I hope the former.)

Questions from Gerda Arendt

Thank you for stepping forward!

2. Arbitration findings and the wishes of principal editors govern the use of infoboxes in articles. If you want to win my "neutral" please say how you would close the discussion at Talk:Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?

   It would depend on sitewide policy. The solution is to hold a broad community-wide RfC to determine their use. If there was consensus that all articles should have them then that would trump the objections of those there. Wikiproject bird editors have had to abide by a policy such as this after all bird names were lowercased following a broad RfC. If an RfC leaves it as no set policy, then a broad RfC on that page to determine consensus is needed. Hopefully with more than eight people participating and proferring an opinion. The main editor's opinion holds as much weight (not more) than anyone else's. Regarding the template model below, all I can do is stress the need for broad RfCs that are adequately advertised and left open for at least a month and attract a significant number of editors. Gotta hunt for the consensus first....

What about a project-wide offer of a template model by project opera? Compare Il ritorno d'Ulisse in Patria, for example.

Adding: at least one candidate looked at the 2013 discussion, but 2015 is the one I mean, sorry if that was not clear.

Where is the 2013 discussion? The opera wikiproject has alot of archives....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear again, I meant 2013 on that same article talk. In case of interest, infobox opera was discussed by the project in May 2013, and then made available, with related reading (good for several nights) before and after. The feature is (more or less) accepted now, the last dispute on project level was archived, and featured articles typically have one, see above.

Well, it looks very nice and all...but. If an editor refuses to use one there needs to be some discussion to get consensus. Which I don't see here. So these things need to be settled by well-constructed broad RfCs. Like what happened with the bird capitalisation debate....sigh.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The call for an RfC is old and unanswered. Who wants to deal with that? Not I, and possibly not you. Can an editor refuse? Good question. Could I have refused to have A Boy was Born moved (to a title which is not the composer's but compliant with our holy MOS)?

You have to have rules for these cases - we're making an encyclopedia and stuff has to look the same. Imagine if I formatted all pages I worked on in Comic Sans.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Project opera disagrees: "... learn to be comfortable with occasional variations when they serve the interests of the article and the reader, and above all treat each other with courtesy and good humour" ;)

2. An editor has been blocked for a month in the name of arbitration enforcement for having said that he creates half of his featured content with women. I find it kafkaesque and remember the opening of The Metamorphosis for an analogy. If you want to win my "support", please - on top of #1 - suggest improvements to get from arbitration enforcement ("not a fun place") to arbitration supervision, where such a thing would not happen. I offered some thoughts, wishing to see Floquenbeam's "no foul, play on" more often, or Yunshui's "The edit was unproblematic and actually made Wikipedia better."

   I would have agreed that the edit-comment was supportive of women. This, coupled with a belief that Jimbo's talk page has more relaxed rules than elsewhere, made this a vexed one to adjudicate for many. My vote would have been to leave it, but some might consider me involved. AE needs more admin eyes. period. I don't have a problem with the structure but it needs more people there.

Wonderful answer to the situation. I don't think being "involved" forces you to do something when you lean to doing nothing ;) - However, that was not the question. Any suggestions for a different style of AE? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from MLauba

I guess this is becoming my question list for former arbs asking to return to the role :) MLauba ^(Talk) 10:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

2. Based on your past experience, what concrete changes in arbitration procedures would you drive to shorten case length?

   I'd combine the evidence and workshop phases into one phase....and be more proactive in nagging folks on the arb mailing list and drive a culture change. In my time there there was not an emphasis on prompt drafting, and I think that was a mistake.

4. Some users come before the committee several times (regardless of reasons), and long-serving or returning arbitrators risk giving in to exasperation. Can you describe steps that you would take to ensure an editor involved in proceedings during past tenures of yours would still get a fair hearing?

   A tricky one. I'd advocate for a lower rather than higher threshold for recusal for starters (one doesn't need all arbs voting all the time anyway) overall, and offer to recuse if I felt than I might have a personal involvement, either positive or negative. I've recused before in cases where folks thought I didn't need to IIRC.

6. Admonishments, topic bans, site bans and discretionary sanctions are part of the most common arbitration remedies. Are there any alternative remedies you would see become more prevalent in case decisions?

   Pushing for community resolutions. e.g. here is one I proposed in 2009, which led to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(West_Bank). This needs to happen more often.

MLauba ^(Talk) 10:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Collect

2. Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?

   My view is that it would be unlikely but not impossible. I wouldn't go proposing a sanction solely because none had already been proposed in a case. I'd examine the issue at hand and judge on its merits alone

4. If an administrator states (hypothetically) "You will vote however you like, and I am frankly not interested in changing your mind, but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me. At the moment, you are not", would that administrator be considered "involved" or "impartial" in any way with the editor in whose talk space he made such an edit?

   Presuming the admin says this on my talk page? I don't follow.....

6. Are arbitators under any reasonable obligation to afford editors who are out of the country on a trip, or have other substantial reasons for absence from a case, any delays in considering cases concerning them? If such a person is given only 1000 words to rebut 1000 words from each of five or more "evidence providers", is that a reasonable limit to place on the defendant, or ought the limit be raised to allow rebuttal of each such section?

   IIRC folks have been allowed to make a succinct statement and then link to more expanded evidence elsewhere, which may not have a limit. They have to realise that the arbs are under no obligation to read it however and may refuse to do so (most sensible arbs would read them though I suspect.

Question from User:Beyond My Ken

2. Do you believe that SPI is the only legitimate mechanism for determining the nature of suspicious editors? If so, what do you advise long-term editors with a good feel for behavioral patterns to do about questionable editors when there is no clear candidate for who the master might be?

   Discuss it privately with the arb, functionary or checkuser mailing lists, clarifying what the threat or disruption to the 'pedia might be, and why it is important to look into the account. It all boils down to the integrity of the 'pedia. Personally I have a bit of a problem with the "checkuser is not for fishing" concept as I am concerned it gives socks that are cunning enough to obfuscate their persona so their old account is not apparent a get out of jail free card.

Questions from Guerillero

Thank you for running for another term of the hardest and most thankless job on the project. Many of these questions are sourced from actual cases, discussions, and problems over the past year. Enjoy!

Subcommittees

2. The Audit Subcommittee was created in 2009 to investigate improper tool usage of our Check Users and Oversighters. Currently, neither the community nor the committee can decide how to handle it. There have been calls to completely disband the subcommittee, transfer its role to the functionaries en banc, and extend it for another year. The current auditors terms expired on 1 October, 2015 and they have been continuing in their roles without formal authorization. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?

   (groan) yes this has been a headache for some time, I recall. I don't see why we can't have a community-wide discussion at some point with options laid out (and continue as is till then). No reason why the decision need be left to the committee alone.

4. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee exists to hear appeals of community bans and long-term blocks. There have been moves to divest this role from the committee. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?

   It would seem the question is moot now as evidenced by this.

Current Disputes and Cases

2. What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?

   If it appeared that the problems they had editing in a collaborative environment were pervasive and likely to recur no matter what area of the 'pedia they were editing in, and that they were a net negative by their continued presence (I presume we are focussing on editing-related issues and not the usual perma-ban ones).

4. Nearly every case involves violations of the civility policy in some way. At one time, a remedy call a "Civility Parole" existed but it fell out of vogue. Today, the only tools in the current Arbitrator's toolboxes to deal with civility issues are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. What new and creative ways would you bring to the table to solve this problem?

   I'd encourage all editors to revert or alter all flippant, gratuitous, grave-dancing, ad hominem posts the instant they see them, and revert if reverted. Deny the person who made them any attention and move on. Simple as that. If someone is dumb enough to keep reverting to reinsert some inane comment, then take it to 3RR or whatever. we could do this by a community-wide RfC on the etiquette of it and utility as the most time-saving way of removing comments for general etiquette change, or maybe use it in arbitration rulings if an editor keeps at it, we advise that any editor is within their rights to revert on sight gratuitously annoying posts. And everyone just moves on. quickly.

6. Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?

   That's a tricky one. The answer is, "probably". The best I can think of is that we think about the decisions we enforce and extrapolate what would we do if the person weren't an admin. Comparing with past cases and sanctions for similar conduct is (or if not, should be) standard.

8. Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?

   Yes. It serves as a log or record, in case the issue recurs. A situation may exist where, after some years, a new committee exists that didn't adjudicate on the first case. Material needs to be official, and allows for it to be incorporated in a subsequent case judged by a new crew of arbs.

Insider Baseball

2. Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?

   I think it holds things up more than its value adds. I would combine it with the evidence phase, as workshopping can be helpful at times.

===Question from Pldx1===

2. Dear candidate. As you probably have noted, an user describing himself as a Grammar Badguy asked the question he asked to the 11 first nominated candidates. In my opinion, the way each candidate answered this question is an important criterion of choice. Since you were not one of the 11, I think it could be fair to give you an occasion to comment. Pldx1 (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

   No more useful. Pldx1 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Antony–22

2. In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it?

   The question is so general as to be meaningless as phrased, the answer being "yes and no". Civility is dwarfed by bullying and harassment in effects on free speech.

4. It's been pointed out that incivility and harassment are not precisely the same thing. What is the line between incivility and harassment? How much does incivility, when it doesn't cross the line into harassment, affect our ability to retain editors, including but not limited to its effects on the gender gap?

   They are not the same thing. There is no line between them—some comments are incivil, some behavior is harassment, and some are both. I don't think it harms editor retention as much as civility proponents think, but I don't think the effect is negligible either. I think harassment is a far greater problem than incivility.

6. Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press lately. Do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under such scrutiny, to reduce the factual inaccuracies that sometimes creep into these articles? For example, do you think that releasing statements, such as been done once on a previous case, should be considered in the future? If so, how could they be made more effective?

   I don't think arbcom is notable enough for that. Consensus for any public statement made by the committee is gained before made. There is no reason why a statement to the media would be different.

8. This question is optional, since candidates don't necessarily like to talk about current cases. But imagine that you are a current member of the Arbcom and you are delegated the task of writing a succinct, neutral primer for the press, of no more than a few paragraphs, on the circumstances leading to the current case Arbitration enforcement 2. Write that primer below. Do not cover or express an opinion on the proposed or actual decision, but concentrate on how you would help a reporter understand what happened before the case was filed.

   Not going there. Inappropriate to discuss that in this venue. Discussion about open cases should take place over there.

10. One last question. Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural, even transgressive nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals from academic and cultural institutions. This is perhaps causing some angst that the community and its interactions may become "professionalized" to the exclusion of established editors. Do you feel this fear is warranted? How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?

    Increasing participation by professionals is a good thing. Do you have evidence to back that statement up? Seriously, I am happy if there is. And what evidence do you base concerns that there is angst? Our prime goal is the creation of a reliable encyclopedia and all efforts ultimately should lead in that direction. All editors should have the expectation that their input can be modified or even deleted, and it is everyone's duty to keep a collaborative environment. What do you mean by "different standards of conduct" as I do not believe professionals to be any more or less civil than volunteers. Have you seen evidence otherwise?

Increased participation from professionals refers to things like the Education Program, Wikipedians-in-Residence and preexisting staff at GLAM institutions, and other partnerships mainly set up through the chapters. Civility enforcement is more controversial than it should be, and I'm guessing that resistance to it might be in part because of fear that if workplace standards of decorum are enforced, existing editors will be driven out. I'm asking if you think this fear is valid, and how we can keep editors when Wikipedia is a countercultural hobby for some and a workplace for others. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Those areas are not usually troubled by spats. On what basis do you say it's more controversial? That's your assumption. What is a workplace standard of decorum? However, let's assume you mean stricter civility, and yes I have some concerns that some editors will leave but ultimately that is their own business. Primarily we're building an encyclopedia and if an editor has contributed a large amount of article work and is collaborative and enthusiastic 97% of the time and blows a gasket 3% of the time then it is hard to think of the person as a net negative (except that people who spend their time on arb-related pages often don't see the good bits). I don't hold that many see it as countercultural and certainly not many would see it as a workplace, so not sure how that is relevant. i don't think views are as dichotomous in general, just that some recent spats over the past year have led to the recurrence of the depressiingly common, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" meme popping up again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)q

Questions from GrammarFascist

2. Please divulge as much of your demographic information as you are comfortable making public. Specifically: your gender, including whether you are cis, trans or other; your sexual orientation; your race and/or ethnicity; where you live (feel free to specify you live in Triesenberg if you want, but a country or continent will do just fine — even just "Southern Hemisphere" or "Western Hemisphere" is helpful); whether you have any condition considered a disability (even if you're not so disabled you're unable to work) including deafness, physical disabilities, developmental disabilities and mental illnesses, again being only as specific as you wish; and what social class you belong to (e.g. working class, middle class, etc.). ¶ If you prefer not to answer any or all of those categories, I won't count it against you. My intention in asking for this information is not to out anyone or try to force affirmative action. However, when deciding between two otherwise equally qualified candidates, I would prefer to be able to vote for more diversity on ArbCom rather than less.

   A married white male with family in the 'burbs with a mortgage...about as vanilla as you can get really.....

2. Please list at least one pro and one con of having non-administrators serve on ArbCom.

   A (surmountable) con is the issue of tools/rights. My preference would be to make an elected arb non-admin an admin on the spot as the election must trump RfA WRT trust/tools etc. A pro is increased editor POV diversity. There is widespread discussion on adminhood having a special "status", so happy to have someone cognizant of that on the committee.

Thanks for responding, Casliber. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 01:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Question from Biblioworm

2. Do you have any experience in successfully resolving disputes, either on-wiki or off-wiki? (I know you were an arbitrator, but as I mentioned in the question, I would like examples of successful dispute resolution. If you want to use your ArbCom work as an example, could you demonstrate what you believe to be your best work in resolving disputes?)

   At my RfA I was praised for resolving a conflict.....but have just been searching for 20 minutes in early 2007 and can't find the damn exchanges. I have over time been involved in a few, but they are often complex and intertwined with a lot of content work. I'll try and dig some up....

Question from Brustopher

Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on WP:OUTING. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.

2. User:Foo get's into an edit conflict on Wikipedia with User:Bar, and end up as parties to a large Arbcom case. Soon afterwards on reddit someone going by the username Bar begins posting lots of critical and disparaging threads about Foo. In these threads they claim to be Wikipedia user Bar. The Bar account on Wikipedia is older than the Bar account on reddit by several years, however the Wikipedia account had only really begun active editing a few years after the reddit account had been created. Foo notices these posts and complains on Bar's talk page and ANI. Bar responds by accusing Foo of WP:OUTING and claims that the account might not even be his. Is it OUTING to connect the Bar reddit account with the Bar Wikipedia account?

   First port of call should be a private and discreet email to the committee. When in doubt ask. please. See below on fake and spoof accounts. However, the information above does make it likely that Bar is engaging in harassment. Correct response by committee is for them to contact Bar, and if Bar denies to come to a conclusion about the likelihood of the link (high in this case) and actt accordingly

4. User:Alice is a party in an Arbcom case. She is browsing the internet one day and decides to google her Wikipedia username. She finds that somebody has uploaded naked photos of another woman to a pornsite and labelled them "Alice of Wikipedia." She looks into the account that has uploaded these files and comes to the conclusion that it is owned by Wikipedia User:Bob, an editor she had clashed with heavily on wiki. In the process she also finds out his real life identity. She emails her evidence to Arbcom. Alice then decides to go to Wikipediocracy's forums, and makes a thread informing them of this porn site account. She asks them if they can guess which Wikipedia editor is behind it, and mentions that she also knows his real life identity. They independently come to the conclusion that it is User:Bob and figure out his real life identity without Alice giving the game away. Alice confirms that this is the case. Nobody in the forum finds it remotely questionable that Bob owns the account in question. In such a situation is it appropriate for Arbcom to pass a finding of fact stating "Alice posted inappropriately to an off-wiki website apparently with the objective of having the participants identify a Wikipedia editor by name." Furthermore is it appropriate for them to then use this supposed violation of WP:OUTING as part of their justification for site banning Alice?

   This is a vexed one. arbcom has delayed in responding to people in the past who have mailed them with concerns or suspicions over other editors. Knowing the case in question, I think it could be argued there were extenuating circumstances given the nature of the harassment and the inability of some arb members in accepting the link beyond reasonable doubt. That said, I think the editor in question had shown longitudinally that she was incapable of working with others in a collaborative environment and possibly should have been indefblocked beforehand anyway. The devil would be in the detail. However I don't advocate criticising or talking negatively of any current wikipedia editor on a criticism site. I have participated there but limit to discussion of facts or defending editors. Another reason to insist on discretion is I can foresee cases of people being duped and that fake attack accounts are made with enough biographical detail to make Bob look guilty. I don't think it happened here but would not rule it out in the future.

Optional Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

2. Is Terms of Use a policy  ? Do you believe that ArbCom can sanction undisclosed paid editors if there is evidence that they violated TOU ?

   Well it's there when you hit 'edit', and it says (not very prominently) that by editing the page you're agreeing to abide by them. As the WMF doesn't get involved except in extreme cases, these things are usually left to arbcom, though as I am writing this there could be a case for punting this to WMF legal...now there's a thought.....

Question by Müdigkeit

2. How many hours per week do you plan to work on the Arbitration Committee?--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

   varies. will depend on whether draughting a case or not. I predict emails will take a few hours alone......

Question from User:Wikimandia

2. Many editors were unhappy with the results of the recent Neelix fiasco, in which the AC closed the case as soon as Neelix resigned as an admin, despite the fact that many of the issues brought up in the evidence page had nothing whatsoever to do with misuse of administrative tools or even his redirect spam, including building walled gardens and violation of WP guidelines concerning advocacy in editing. This led to accusations of a double standard for admins and regular editors. (If a non-admin had done the same, there could be no such easy dismissal as we don't have tools to resign). Neelix never acknowledged or agreed to stop any of this behavior, simply (eventually) apologized for the redirects only and then later resigned with no further comment. There was significant support for at least a topic ban at the ANI. Do you believe a topic ban or other measure should have been applied in this case?

   It would have been good for arbcom to agree with the ban on creation of redirects. Detailed trivia is a hard one as the level to which we have detail has no consensus. The POV-pushing in prostitution probably should have been looked into in more detail. the non-notable articles generally get deleted - it's pretty hard to keep these afloat, so wouldn't haven needed a finding or remedy.

Questions from *****

2. Arbitrators on occasion have to deal with editors in a fragile mental state. Some particular behaviors might in fact be symptoms of a disease that other users are ignorant of, for example obsessive compulsive disorder. Although most of those cases may seem relatively minor and go unnoticed, it can happen that one blows out of proportion. The community, desiring to defend the integrity of the encyclopedia, might react "aggressively". When it concerns an editor who invested a lot in Wikipedia, this might have consequences for the well being of this person. If such a case were to reach ArbCom, how would you take into consideration the well being of this person, and balance it with your other prerogatives ?

   These situations can be very delicate. I have been involved in several such over the years, both as arb and as editor. They require the utmost discretion and care, and at times intervention has been required while simultaneously prioritising the person's privacy and minimising disruption. I can't really go into details as each one has had different problems and strengths. At present, a responsive and discreet committee is the best placed entity to handle this off-wiki. Ideally the WMF would be taking over this function but I feel it is still a tad remote from the editing community. (Note: This question was originally from a sock of someone (don't know who). I do, however, think the question is relevant, so have fudged the name and taken responsibility for it)

Question by SageRad

2. Hello, Casliber. Thank you for putting yourself into the running and giving all this time to Wikipedia. I'm somewhat assured by your answer to the previous question above mine. I would like to know whether you see bullying and other aggressive behaviors that take place over time, and aren't just things like using "cuss words" but deeper psychological manipulations by some editors, to the detriment of the general editing environment? And if so, what can we do about this issue? Would you support an anti-bullying task force made up of volunteers who get some training about how to recognize bullying and how to bring some resolution when they see it? Do you think this is a way that bad/dominating behaviors could be curbed without waiting for and going through an ArbCom case? Thank you. SageRad (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, one of my concerns is longitudinal grudges - behaviour that can be hard to track unless one studies the situation over an extended period. I feel the community at large has had trouble monitoring behaviour like this. I notice that the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and Wikipedia:Editor assistance pages are pretty quiet and perhaps these could be used more, if we start with a baseline assumption of good faith and try to move forward from there in the first instance. Otherwise failing this, sadly, I think the committee has been the next port of call....(but necessary once privacy becomes a concern/issue) We can do this internally or externally. My first suggestion would be beefing up the mediation committee and editor assistance areas, and possibly offering editors who are keen to help others trainiing. It could also be done with WMF employees but in one way they are a bit remote from the community. Dunno. Needs exploring.

Questions from Ryk72

Thank you for stepping forward; your commitment to serving the community is greatly appreciated.

Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.

2. The en.Wikipedia community has been likened to that of a gaol (US:prison), with members of various gangs aggressively supporting each other in disputes, which are policed by trusted inmates. Do you agree with this view? If so, why so? If not, why not? To what extent are the behaviours which lead to this view enabled by AN/I, AE & ArbCom?

   This is seen on the most contentious pages yes, but there are large areas where it is not evident. Dichotomous pages such as AfD and RfC/U (thankfully now inactivated) contributed to factionalism

4. Do you believe that our current processes & procedures encourage adversarial methods of dispute resolution? If so, is this a good or bad thing? If bad, what role should ArbCom play in addressing this?

   See above. AN/I is messy. This is a bad thing. The lack of structure there leads to issues being punted prematurely to arbcom. Arbcom is not govcom but can and does recommend alternative methods of resolution. Could be more proactive in identifying specific help, rather than the "just not ripe for arbcom" meme...

6. What are the advantages and disadvantages of WP:BOOMERANG? Would you support its retention, restriction or abolition? Why?

   It's an essay. It holds no weight whatsoever, despite how often it is splashed around at drama boards. Any issue brought anywhere should be looked at in its entirety. The bringer should not be targeted but not immune to examination either

8. We see regular use of WP:DUCK/WP:SOCK to justify indefinite blocks of new editors entering contentious topic spaces, without those editors being explicitly linked to banned accounts. Is this use justified? If so, why so? If not, why not?

   Difficult one. I am not a fan of anonymous editing and the issue is old editors returning under the radar vs overzealous stomping of new accounts at either extreme. hard to have a middle ground. Am not experienced enough in these areas to determine where the actual or ideal is on this spectrum

10. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Remedies, ArbCom implemented a "500/30" limit on edits to the Palestine-Israel (the 3rd topic space in which this remedy has been used). What are the positives & negatives of this remedy as written? Would a more technical/formal implementation (akin to semi-protection) be an improvement? What other improvements, if any, might be made?

    I would have used (a) generous semiprotection and (b) more proactive remedies like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) (which I pushed for) in areas of specific debate

12. A hypothetical editor, involved in a contentious topic space, regularly derails Talk page discussion with personal views on the subject, anecdotes of their off-Wiki involvement in the topic, epistemological first principle reasoning for exclusion of material, "hatting" of discussions, and snide attacks on new editors. Administrators have failed to address this editor's behaviour; WP:AE has failed to address the editor's behaviour. What should be done?

    arb case for review. People have been sanctioned or even banned before for longterm disruptive beahviour of this type. Of course all forms of conflict resolution should be tried in the meantime

14. Would you be prepared to recuse from 1/3rd of cases, and encourage other Arbs to do likewise, so that each case might be addressed faster, and by fewer Arbs?

    One would go inactive, not recuse, and yes, I believe that all arbs should be active in other areas of wikipedia to avoid getting a too-jaundiced view of the place.

Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from User:Blackmane

2. This is a hypothetical that is somewhat based on real threads that have occurred on WP:AN and WP:ANI in the past. An editor who self identifies as having a mental disability or disorder has been indefinitely blocked for a variety of violations, take your pick of edit warring, NPA, disruption, CIR, POINT, Godwin's etc, and is now seeking to return to editing. Quite a few members of the community have sought to advise this editor on why they were blocked but struggle to get the editor to understand. I'd like to hear your thoughts about how Wikipedia works with those who suffer from such disorders. This is an open ended, and deliberately vague, question that will no doubt be difficult to answer, but is more for me, and presumably other editors, to get a grasp of your thoughts. Blackmane (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

   Hard to generalize as this covers a wide array of conditions and editing problems. It is important that people with mental health issues not be discriminated against and some accommodation (if possible) made to assist them in editing harmoniously, or alternately protect them from damaging their reputation with edits if the problems are not surmountable in the short or long term. Privacy is critical in these situations, which makes the arb committee's role in handling sensitive/private information and proximity to the editing community (unlike the WMF) a key to dealing with the situation for the time being. The WMF's profile and role is improving/increasing over time and it might be at some point that it is taken over.

Question from Kevin Gorman

2. Recently a situation came up where the gender of an editor, which had not been disclosed by the editor anywhere on-wiki, was posted on several pages. The gender of the editor given the nature of their background is a potentially quite sensitive piece of information, with potential real-life implications. With fairly extensive discussion and multiple requests to oversight the information, the decision was made not to oversight the information with the stated reason being that gender does not explicitly fall under any of the English Wikipedia's oversight criteria. In a similar situation, would you support either interpreting the oversight criteria more broadly in general, IAR oversighting a situation like this, rewriting the oversight criteria to be more inclusive, or would you choose to not oversight the information in question? (As background, according to the EFF, the triumvirate of date of birth, zip code, and gender are sufficient to uniquely identify 87% of American citizens.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

   Without knowing which case it iwas, i is hard to say. My default is that I suspect I would be in favour of interpreting oversight broadly but would very much depend on the situation. I'd be considerably more circumspect if I found out that a male editor was presenting themselves as female and attempting to gain mileage out of gender-related debate. But these are all hypotheticals. And even in the last case I think we'd try discussing it with the person to reach some resolution.