Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Casliber/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from
Lingzhi2

Let's assume, and quite reasonably so, that there are some policies and guidelines that
WP:CONSENSUS
? How would you deal with a situation in which you felt the consensus was meaningfully wrong?
My first thought was Wikipedia:Standard offer....but then I noticed it was only an essay, which makes it more lame as to how often it is quoted like gospel (I mean, it's a good starting point and all..but I've seen people (including the committee..and me) treat it as policy). ~~I'll think of another.~~ I suppose it'd be somewhere where a long-term contributor had lost their temper and done something...impetuous..in a brain explosion. I'd (possibly) be inclined to look at their indiscretion favourably i guess.

Questions from Newslinger

When, if ever, would
paid editing
?
Discretionary Sanctions exists as a measure to preserve the editing environment of difficult pages. This may or may not include pages where paid editing is an issue. We constantly have to weigh up openness ("anyone can edit") with steps to restrict that if the editing environment is compromised. I don't think it has a specific role in paid editing, unless there have been longstanding issues, in which case administrators could make a case for DS based on article instability.
To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of
two-factor authentication
on Wikipedia?
I presume you're meaning compulsory 2FA for all accounts? A decision to adopt this would most likely come from the WMF or community after a community-based discussion. Given that IPs can edit, and obviously don't need to log in, it strikes me as maybe overly cautious, but I think that is not a decision for arbcom. Anyone who wants to access 2FA can request it now anyway.

Question from Peacemaker67

What do you think about the decision to accept Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort? In particular, considering the lack of prior dispute resolution attempts or attempt to use ANI to deal with the behavioural issues. Why or why not?
Over the years, I have found that the various boards and locales for reviewing conduct issues have not been great in situation involves protracted disputes and requires more-than-cursory inspection and review of sources and referencing and how said sources are used. I can't see how this matter would have been reviewed properly elsewhere, so on the balance of that, I think that arbcom was the best place for this to be reviewed.

I would say that the banning was a walk-up start and should have been handled at ANI, but the rest has had little effect on either side of what was basically a content dispute. It was a huge time sink and the benefits were minimal because it was almost entirely about content, not conduct, and ArbCom isn't here to look at content. It has also been weaponised against good-faith editors, with a recent attempt to re-litigate it. I hope ArbCom will steer clear of these sorts of cases in the future, unless behavioural problems have proved intractable and unable to be dealt with at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen civility problems handled well, and things like copyvio, at various noticeboards. More complex content matters notsomuch. However it is prudent not to generalise. Can you highlight links to the subsequent developments you mention above? Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

This example, which is being referred to below. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks - that makes for some light bed-time reading....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda

I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. Imagine you had been an arb, what would you have written in reply? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Part of me felt similarly, though without seeing the private evidence it is impossible to state conclusively. Just based on public evidence, Fram could be highly abrasive and confrontational, however (from the confrontations I saw) he was right alot, if not most, of the time. This then segues into a bigger dilemma of weighting of wikipedia-as-encyclopedia vs wikipedia-as-editing-community, and examining the grey area between hounding vs Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Arbcom was correct in highlighting a need for further discussion on the topic.
Thank you, I saw the same, that Fram has been right a lot. Same case, same thread, subheader LouisAlain. What do you see there? The name of my friend came up on meta.
I can't find the link on meta. I guess you're saying the author had no problem with Fram deleting his copyvios so why should anyone else...?

Good question ;) - Which remedy would you have supported then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case you want to study meta, the link is in the gadfium questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this case is based solely on public evidence, I would have supported 1a and 2e, and (probably) 3. I think though in all honesty I would have had to recuse based on Fram filing a case against me in 2014. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, satisfied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carrite

What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
There are various issues - hard to rank them as such as they vary in "intensity" as it were. One thing that I didn't think was a good thing was that many arbs seemed to focus their time on dispute resolution boards and arb pages, so I feared this would lead to a disconnect between their view of the wider editing community and wikipedia as a whole. I said in 2010 that I thought it was important for me to continue content-building and busying myself in other areas of wikipedia to be a part of the community rather than beyond/apart from it (I think I said this in 2008 somewhere as well but I can't find it). I think this is fixable and very much dependent on personnel - I should say that some people who do little do understand many of the greater issues well. Another (to some degree addressable) problem is the "we don't examine content" theme. There have been cases where examining how editors have used or misused sources has been important to the outcome of the case. The ability for the committee to do this varies greatly - on some cases it has been more straightforward and on others very very difficult, but we can't just say we can never do this. Yes arbs cop verbal abuse out of frustration - I recall after one election I had become a manager at work, an arb, and a parent of teenagers...aaaand simultaneously started copping verbage from all three avenues (shrugs) - it helps put it in perspective - sometimes folks are angry at you as a template of authority/frustration or whatever - and not get too upset about it. I do think that there have been many times in each of the three terms I've been there when the committee has moved slowly - part of it is due to the structure of the mailing list and allocation of chores. Not sure how permanently fixable this is though we can try and speed things up. There have also been issues with delays in replying to folks' emails intermittently - hopefully this has gotten better over time. If I think of others I will add.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Cassianto

Last year, I was the named party in the ham-fisted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions, that was brought about as a result of a biased committee not being impartial. The case should've been entitled Infobox 3, but the committee considered it to be too difficult to deal with the infobox problem and instead, made the case exclusively about me - suffice to say, the problem with infobox discussions still exist. I wondered whether, in future cases, not exclusive to IB discussions, you would consider it more important to deal with the cause rather than just the symptom?
There are numerous grey areas that have become evident over time - notability, BC/AD vs BCE/CE, infoboxes (good on some articles, questionable on others), referencing styles - for which some sort of top-down direction would be highly prudent. If these are recognised in prolonged disputes, then it makes sense for the committee to direct the community to come to some sort of consensus on these. I was one of the pushers for a decision like this in this 2009 case, which led to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank)

Thanks Cas. Let me be more specific: The disruption is caused by individuals starting RfC after RfC after RfC until they get the answer they want. The byproduct of this repeated disruption is incivility through sheer frustration - we are, after all, only human. Apparantly, the last committee dealt with the "incivility", but we still have the cause, the repeated starting up of infobox discussions and RfCs, as seen on Stanley Kubrick. In this scenario, is it better to deal with the cause or the symptom? Cassianto^Talk 17:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so let's take this case as an example - infoboxes are uncontroversial and useful on many articles, particularly those I work on (various animals/plants/fungi/stars/planets/constellations) whereas they are clearly useless on many others (spernatural creatures for instance), and still further, used in many but not all biography articles. Of course there is no information at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Using_infoboxes_in_articles. At some point, someone needs to stake this dispute through the heart and develop a consensus of which articles they are on and which they are not. Don't forget, I (with other wiki bird watchers) was part of a prolonged argument over capitalisation of bird names which culminated in 2014 - the birds wikiproject was overruled by general consensus and alot of bird editors were angry and upset. Although I was unhappy with the result, I could see that the issue had been simmering from some years beforehand - folks just accept it now. As the 'pedia has grown, there are a few examples of these inconsistencies that have been allowed to develop (referencing styles, BC/AD vs BCE/CE etc., notability guidelines) - some have caused great angst, some not. There aren't that many but sorting out the rules and aligning would at least remove some of the issues folks argue over. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Leaky caldron

There have been occasional, some might say frequent instances, of a perceived bias in the way that prolific content creators are treated compared to members of the community who support the en-WP in other ways. Is this something you recognise? When these contributors end up at AC - how should they be treated?
It is easy to get a jaundiced (and possibly inaccurate) view of wikipedia if one's main experience is dispute resolution noticeboards. Many people are not great at taking on board issues they don't have direct experience with, and it can be a challenge to grasp what it takes to build and maintain the 'pedia. I have seen situations where I feel that not enough consideration was given to content-builders when they've lost their temper in some dispute, however it is important not to generalise. Each situation needs to be assessed on its own merits. Note that the opposing view led to essays like Wikipedia:No vested contributors and Wikipedia:Unblockables. Truth is, these are all points of view and it is by discussing and assessing the situation in its entirety and on its own merits that we try and make the best decisions we can.
Where on earth do you get the idea that my main experience is dispute resolution noticeboards? And if that isn't aimed at me, why mention it? I think your answer is a bit waffly if I'm to be honest. I am looking for candidates who agree with my assertion and think (a) yes, and that's how it should be or (b) are intent on doing something about it. Alternatively who can prove to me that I'm wrong. Your answer appears designed to sit very firmly on the fence in order to satisfy (or at least not dissatisfy) the voters.
Not aimed at you - I said it in reference to numerous discussions I've had about situations similar to this when I was on the arbitration committee, defending content contributors in disputes in discussion with other arbitrators. More bluntly, with one user I tried to argue that for much of their time editing, probably over 90% of his edits were constructive and helpful, however some of my colleagues only saw the maybe 5% of edits where he'd lost his temper. Wikipedia is a volunteer project and sometimes we have to take our contributors warts-and-all. Unfortunately events have developed and the editor in question is currently indefblocked - a sad development and one I'd like to help untangle if it is indeed untangleable. Now, so yes my answer is (b) I'd like to advocate for content contributors BUT that doesn't mean a free pass for all problem behaviour. Hence I can't generalise. I have known other expert content contributors who were almost impossible to work with and have concluded they were/are unable to interact in the collaborative environment here.

Questions from Collect

Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?
Probably yes but hard to generalise really, but I've generally taken a broader view of COI and recusal than others. I am happy to opine on specific situations.
Ought the persons named in a case be given sufficient time to answer charges made by others, rather than have each be given the same time limits?
We need time limits to get the cases done in a timely manner. However, if a person comes up with some information that potentially impacts on the findings/conclusions of a case, then I am not going to disregard it if it comes in past the deadline.
When an arbitrator proffers specific evidence on their own, ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence" as though it were timely presented, with the same time allowed for such a response?
An arbitrator offering evidence technically should be acting as a party not arbitrator, though one coming to a conclusion (say) in a workshop page is not. I'd like to assume that any party presented with evidence should be given a chance to respond to same, with a timeframe mutually agreed upon.

Question from WereSpielChequers

Are there any circumstances where you would think it acceptable to give an editor a fixed term block without telling them why or what you expect them to desist from when they return? (Yes, this is a Fram related question).
Without any explanation at all? No. If it were that serious that we couldn't discuss (say, child protection or something) it'd be an indef/ban...

Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Caker18

Can you provide an example of you mediating a conflict where both parties were mutually hostile?
In June 2014, a few people were working on and improving cervix. One person who was reviewing was a user, Snowmanradio (now inactive), who was quite thorough and somewhat concrete in how they would interpret referencing and prose. This led to some frustration Talk:Cervix/GA2. Snowman was blocked at one point and bewildered about why. Afterwards, he began editing the article and ran into disagreements with Doc James - and an edit warring notification was filed - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive248#User:Snowmanradio_reported_by_User:Jmh649_(Result:_Warned) - I tried calming things down and moving people into a more collaborative mindset but it was heavy going. I am trawling though archives as these episodes don't really stick in my mind. Do you mean "mutually hostile" to me (hence me as independent 3rd party?) Looking through 3RR archives, I can see places where I have locked an article that was subject to edit-warring in an attempt to nut out consensus rather than blocking parties. Nothing really sticks out though.

Question from SQL

Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?
I'll have to think about this one as I have been focussing on content for a loooong time. I'd not think about pride with respect to contributions to a discussion in general, so it's not something i can readily answer in a strictly literal fashion.....okay....trawling though AN archives and anywhere I might have taken part. I took part in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive252#Discussion_about_unblocking_Science_Apologist in 2013 and highlighted a procedural issue that facilitated Scienceapologist's unblock....looking for more recent..trawling though AN archives.....I commented alot in 2013-14, but not so much since. Also a few people I tried to stick up for are now indefblocked. I don't regret it, I'm not proud, I just tried.

Question from Praxidicae

What are your thoughts about functionaries and other advanced permission holders discussing Wikipedia and other Wikimedians (in otherwise good standing) with WMF banned editors, specifically those who have a history of doxing and harassment?
I presume you mean about wikipediocracy or its predecessor Wikipedia Review? I have made comments there sporadically over the years. I make it a rule not to comment negatively about any wikipedia editor on wikipediocracy. I might make a comment to defend someone, or otherwise just discuss content-related material. The site covers a range of material, from trolling to insightful criticism. Regarding others - yes I don't think it is a good idea for current wikipedia editors to criticise other current wikipedia editors there. If you're gonna do that then much fairer to have a full and frank discussion on-wiki or via email or whatever. You may ask why I am not more strident when I see bad conversations over there...well, it's a bit like talking about climate change at a Republican Party convention...sigh...life's too short to get embroiled in flame wars...

Question from SN54129

How would you contextualise Peacemaker67's question on the 2018 GWE arbitration case with the more recent suggestion by one sitting arbitrator, who advised Peacemaker...Be careful that MILHIST doesn't become a place where that groupthink crowds out those who genuinely disagree, and another that MILHIST was counsel[ed]...to bear in mind that it does risk becoming a walled garden?
Funnily enough I have been through a situation with some similarities regarding capitalisation of bird common names (birds are the only organisms with official common names), and WP bird editors vigorously defended this style (capitalising bird names) for several years until it erupted into a large and acrimonious debate in 2014. Are consensus and groupthink the flipsides of the same coin? Could the same be said of the arbitration committee at times? Members of each entity will insist they've carefully thought out any belief and that others are Missing The Point. But seriously, there is a danger for that anywhere and hence it is important to have open conversations and PROVIDE SOURCES to back up content-related debates. It also feeds back into my observation that the committee cannot ignore how content is used and there must be inspection of this in complex debates. But in short, yes groupthink is a phenomenon and worth keeping an eye out for.

Question from Banedon

If Eric Corbett had not been indef'ed, would you have declined this case request for the reasons given in your statement?
Yes. It could have been managed better. It was a difficult situation with frayed tempers. Eric could spend long period being helpful and constructive in between times where he lost his temper. And then things went a bit pear-shaped after this sadly. I agree with your observation that suspending it is a bad idea. The case and background are complex - I don't think it does much to define baiting (which is a simple yet diverse concept and each edit being thought of as such can be judged on its own merits. The flareup was dying down. People who don't come across Eric's (considerable) good work just see these flareups and hence assume it is an editor who is problematic most of the time.

Question from Piotrus

Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [1]. in which I concldued that "A practical recommendation for Wikipedia in particular, and for other communities with collegiate courts in general, is that when electing members to their dispute resolution bodies, those communities would do well to pay attention to how much time the prospective future judges can devote to this volunteering task." In other words, may Arbitrators become inactive due to real world reasons (family, job) and this is not an exception but a rule, repeated time and again throughout ArbCom history. Do you think there is any practical way to deal with this, such as, for example, asking Arbitrators to obligatorily describe, in their election process, how they plan to ensure they have sufficient free time to devote to this activity?
Yes, that's why (I suspect) we elect so many arbs, to allow for a number to go inactive for whatever reason. From my experience, free time or lack thereof is only part of the picture as to why some arbs are more active than others. It's about priorities, and how people assign their free time, and their level of industriousness (ask any of your overweight friends how much free time they have to dedicate to going to the gym vs the fit ones). You could ask people, but I suspect plenty of their answers will vary from the end result in two years' time. I will look up the fulltext of your paper to see what else I can think of.

Question from Iffy

While a lot of people are focussing (rightly) on the Fram case, I want to ask you about the Rama case from earlier this year. Would you have voted to desysop Rama? Feel free to explain your answer (especially if your answer is not a simple Yes or No).
It was a tricky one - Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability places an emphasis on "repeated" problems, which this wasn't - more of a loss of temper in a heated situation. The issue is whether when someone is annoyed enough that they dig their heels in, whether we consider it as a single (if prolonged) episode or multiple infractions. I am leaning (slightly) to the former, but could be easily persuaded the other way. The flip side is the long period of low activity, which carries a connotation if specific tool use to push an agenda in a psecific occasion, which is a problem, so can see a case for stricter rather than laxer interpretation of conduct. Contrition goes a long way in these situations too.

Question from Gadfium

In User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates, she says "Know what you'll do if you don't win a seat. This is an important test. Will you continue participating in the building of the encyclopedia? In what areas do you plan on working? Some people have considerable difficulty resuming normal editing life after an unsuccessful run." What will you do if you're not elected?
I plan on continuing to write articles and run core or stub contests. I'll do these regardless of whether I am elected or not.

Question from Volunteer Marek

Apologies for late question. There has always been a lot of complaints about lack of communication and transparency with regards to the committee. While this issue is not new, it has never really been adequately addressed, aside from the ever presented hackneyed promises during election time. The complaints have been particularly vociferous recently. Please see this proposal and express your opinion on it. Would you support something like it (even if not exactly in this form) when on ArbCom?
There is some merit in this, but rather than use a new space, I'd recommend using Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, which isn't particularly busy. It might make that more dynamic and more interactive too.

Question from WBG

Over this page, all of the arbitrators (sans PMC, who responded a single time) refused to engage a multitude of queries and concerns from multiple longstanding members of the community, despite the case being entirely situated on public evidence. I note this ATCN thread, as well.
Do you feel that the displayed behavior abides by general community expectations of arbitrator conduct? Some have since stated that the concurrently running FRAMGATE meant that they had to be less devoted to this case; in such a situation, how would you have tackled this case (if anything different, at all)?
~~Bit late here in Oz to read in detail as I need to get some shut-eye. Will look tomorrow~~ Okay, I guess you mean Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Workshop rather than the Proposed Decision page. Yes, there needs to be more feedback here. Generally when the committee accepts a case, there are a couple of people doing the bulk of the investigating for much of the case, so two cases at once should not a problem. I am guessing Framgate was generating alot of discussion though, but still I think this would have been feasible. However, ultimately I can't comment conclusively as I am not privy to the mailing list. In short, I would have pushed to keep things ticking on the other case...

Your fellow candidate, Gadfium writes:- Arbs should be highly responsive to community concerns on the talk pages of cases and that anyone who expresses an honest and constructive opinion should be taken seriously. Do you agree with the premises of these statements? Comment.
Yes I agree

Thanks, in advance, for your answers. ∯WBG^converse 08:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Jehochman

How do you feel about the right of reply and do you think this principle should be applied to Wikipedia biographies and/or Wikipedia dispute resolution, and if so, how?
Ideally discussion is an inherent part of dispute resolution here, which (I would have thought) includes a right of reply implicitly. Hence it should be the default unless something is precluding discussion. Without being more specific, it is hard to know what you're getting at.

I'm really not thinking of anything in particular. Many years ago a friend said that Wikipedia was unfair because articles could be created about people, and the person can't take action to stop those with an axe to grind from using a Wikipedia page as an attack platform. One thought is that subjects should be allowed to post a tag disputing the neutrality of an article about them, maybe with a link to the talk page where they can post a response to content in the article.

As for dispute resolution, I think it's a parallel issue. If Editor A is going to talk about Editor B some place Editor B can't respond, that's would be wrong in most circumstances, no? Jehochman ^Talk 03:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It boils down to core wikipedia policies of verifiability and undue weight. Editor B is welcome to post on the talk page and many editors are highly sensitive to BLP issues. Hence in all likelihood, issues will be examined and if it is felt that the article is unduly negative or the material is suspect, there is a good chance the article will be balanced. If Editor B's complaints don't stack up against verifiability and balance then that is unfortunate. We also do have BLP1E which might be of use in this situation. Generalising about this material is tricky. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Robert McClenon

Some of the most important decisions by arbitrators are whether to accept or decline cases. What principles will you follow on voting on whether to accept cases that may be within the scope of arbitration, as opposed to declining the cases and leaving them for the community?
The consensus has been the last port-of-call after other avenues have been exhausted. The exceptions to that are (a) when administrator conduct has been credibly called into question. The committee need to review these situations and I suspect I'd have a lower threshold of acceptance of review than some previous committees. The other situations are (b) if there are extensive privacy-related issues to dispute or conduct that can't be aired on-wiki (involved editors come to mind), and (c) some protracted content disputes where there are undelying issues prolonging or inflaming the dispute that are not being addressed. e.g. the status and extent of portals on wikipedia being an obvious one.
Do you think that the initial T&S action in banning Fram was a valid exercise of responsibility by Trust and Safety, a completely unjustified overreach by T&S, or something in between, such as an over-reaction by T&S to an existing weakness in the English Wikipedia's sanctions regime?
I don't know the basis of their original action. But in following the committee's ruling and absence of other sanctions, my suspicions lie with an overreach. (but I can't comment conclusively)
In recent years the ArbCom has almost always been significantly late in issuing proposed decisions. The current PIA4 case is an example. Do you propose any action to reduce these delays, such as either shortening the delay between closing of the workshop and posting of the proposed decision, or providing a longer target date?
Cracking the whip behind the scenes :) That said, I'd rather things were done right than done quickly. It would be the subject of a consensus-building discussion with the incoming committee. Just thinking about it as I write, we could have more drafters maybe. I must add I've been off the committee for a while so not sure if and how things have changed.

Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the
WP:TOU
?
Wikipedia has a policy - Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. However, rules on outing can make investigation of undisclosed paid editing a delicate matter. Hence, if there is any concern over outing, the arbitration committee serves as a private place where these issues can be investigated (and acted upon). Much like other socking issues.

Question from Grillofrances

What is the single thing you'd like to improve the most in ArbCom?
That the committee makes more of a habit of examining how editors use (and misuse) sources in conflicts, and directing the community to come up with solutions (such as I highlighted in my statement) if it turns out that a lack of consensus in a topic overall is contributing to a protracted dispute.