Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates/SilkTork/Questions

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

Questions from Red-tailed hawk

  2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of
    WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involvement with respect to administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:IAR have been looked into in the case?). My view is that I can, depending on the circumstances, admire someone who stands up for what they feel is right, even when the rules forbid that stand. However, to prevent encouraging people to unwisely ignore rules, anyone who makes such a stand should be sanctioned (and should expect to be sanctioned). The amount of such sanction to be determined by how much disruption they caused alongside the probability of the action having been done anyway if the rules had been followed. Preferably, everyone should open a discussion and get consensus for an action that is or possibly might be controversial and/or against the rules.

    The Athaenara case is very recent, and we are still dealing with the repercussions from that incident and case - TNT had their admin tools restored on request just yesterday. I should imagine we all understand TNT's frustration and anger at the situation, and empathise with their actions. And I think we all understand that they needed to be sanctioned.

    Because there are subtle variations and degrees of being Involved, each case needs to be taken on its merits. Of primary importance in any future case is a study of the incident and current guidelines; and though past cases can sometimes help inform current decisions, the older those cases are the less relevant they become to the here and now. SilkTork (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Questions from Rschen7754

  2. After your first term, you were given this barnstar where it was implied that you didn't enjoy being on ArbCom. Your second term ended in a resignation following WP:FRAM. Given that, why run again? Rschen7754 01:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Madness isn't it? ;-) Partly because I was impressed by the actions of the current ArbCom. Partly because so few people had put themselves forward (I also privately emailed a few people encouraging them to step forward). I am going into this fully aware that there may be friction within the Committee when reaching decisions (such friction is rarely seen outside of ArbCom: what happens in ArbCom stays in ArbCom, though some of the frictions do sometimes spill out), and that there may be awkward decisions to make. I've always relished the awkward decision. My preference when closing discussions and AfDs is to do the challenging ones. It's more engaging and more satisfying. So: 1) I believe the frictions I saw in my first term, and the challenges of Framgate in my second term, were unusual, and are unlikely to occur again (if I'm elected and they do occur, I'll know I'm cursed, and will never apply to work on ArbCom again!); 2) I am older, wiser, and more experienced, so, if elected, I'm comfortable that I'll be better able to deal with whatever happens. SilkTork (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from TheresNoTime

  2. How do you foresee the role of the Arbitration Committee changing with regard to the adoption of the Universal Code of Conduct (namely, due to the enforcement guidelines, and the introduction of the global Coordinating Committee)? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    During my first term on ArbCom the Committee was still responsible for a wide range of misbehaviours, including child abuse, that we should not properly have been responsible for. If I recall (my memory is a bit fuzzy, and I'm not researching this, so someone correct me if I'm wrong) it was around that time that Worm started discussions with WMF that the WMF should take over responsibility for child abuse and related issues. WMF has been looking since then to judge just how much responsibility they should take for inappropriate behaviour on Wikipedia and other WMF sites. Not an easy thing to assess without full consultation with the separate communities, and they made an error when they sidestepped ArbCom to ban Fram, resulting in Framgate. The forming of the Universal Code of Conduct is where we are now, and its a step in the right direction, and we'll see how it works. I think it will be useful for those communities which are not as organised and self-determining as the English Wikipedia. It's less clear how it will work with our community, and that is something that I think we'll find out. Provided WMF are as flexible, responsive, consensus-minded and willing to listen as the English Wikipedia community (and, after Framgate, I think they learned how resilient our community is to having self-determination taken away from us), then we should be able to openly talk through any issues arising. There are issues that the community can deal with, issues that ArbCom should deal with, and issues that are best dealt with via (U4C) or WMF direct. While there are some obvious bright lines separating those areas of responsibility, there are also some fuzzy grey lines; and that's always going to be the case, as we can't predict what will come up - we can't predict
    the unknown unknowns. With a positive frame of mind and positive communication we can resolve difficulties as they arise. SilkTork (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Is
    ANI pronounced A-N-I or Annie? Thank you for standing, and good luck. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Questions from Gerda Arendt

  2. Do you believe that we still have infobox wars? If yes, do you have better ideas than the 2013 arb ruling to end them?
    If I recall, at the time of the Infobox wars, Infoboxes were still relatively new. Some people relish the new. Some people prefer stability. "Move forward - it's better!" "Stay the same - it works fine, and I understand it!". Such disagreements are common in life, and even more common on Wikipedia. New things tend to take time to get accepted. Infoboxes have been around a while now. They are not universally placed on every article, but I would say that the majority of articles have an Infobox, and the majority of users and readers will find them a useful guide or summary of key points. There may still be some disagreements about if an Infobox is useful in a particular article. I think that the main point of the case ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes) would still apply today. That if there is a disagreement about if an Infobox is useful in an article, then that should be resolved by editorial discussion leading to a consensus, rather than by edit warring. SilkTork (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thank you for your thoughts, and you were an arb in 2013, so know better than users who came later. I agree that disagreements about infoboxes should be resolved, like other disagreements, in editorial discussion. The term infobox war came up in 2005 (see 2013 arbcase workshop), I met the conflict in 2012, over Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, so doubt a bit that infoboxes were new in 2013. What was new then, however, was {{infobox opera}}, which should have been the only issue of the arbcase, but what did I know then about arbitration, - nothing! I can report - not without pride - that the template is now transcluded in 1631 operas, and the former alternatives, the side navboxes for composers, were all deleted last year, not without more discussions. - Follow-up question, the same for all who answered the first: Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective?
    Pleased to see an infobox disagreement being settled in an appropriate format. Sad to see, though, that there are ongoing unresolved issues regarding the use of an infobox in that article. However, that is the way with Wikipedia - "stuff matters". The optimist in me hopes that will be the end of that dispute on that article. I was impressed with your contribution, Gerda, and saddened that a returning user editing from an IP joined the discussion purely to rake over old issues and to attack you. You didn't deserve that, especially given your neutral comments which amounted to a support of the status quo on that article, even though that was against your own views. Other than that IP (who was appropriately blocked), the discussion was calm, with people clearly putting over their views without spit and phlegm. I can see the points in the arguments on both sides, though it is clear that the majority of editors like them, and I suspect that the majority of reader do as well, so I can see their use increasing rather than decreasing, and it might be time for those who dislike them to just accept the situation. As far as infoboxes go, that is a very modest and useful one. And it is, perhaps, a model of what a good infobox should look like. I like the detailed close - perhaps a little long, but as a detailed closer myself, I think it is always better to err on the side of too much detail in a close than too little. Uninformative closes tend to unsettle and frustrate people. On the whole, Gerda, my perspective is that I found the discussion more encouraging than saddening. SilkTork (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from DanCherek

  2. Thanks for volunteering. At Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Wugapodes, you opposed in part because they were an incumbent arbitrator at the time, writing: I am convinced by the arguments regarding a trend toward there being too many higher level permissions being grouped into the hands of a small group. [1]. If elected, this would be your first stint on ArbCom since becoming a bureaucrat. Did that concern about concentration of powers factor into your decision to run? DanCherek (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time I put my name down, Worm was the only Arb going forward who is a Crat. I think it's important to have two or three Crats in the Committee, though more than that I think is not healthy. If I recall, that was the situation at the time of Wugapodes RfB - if they had been made up to Crat, that would have tipped it over into four Crats in the Committee (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just going on memory). If they put themselves forward now, I don't think they would have any problems. I would vote for them. SilkTork (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BilledMammal

  2. Would you ever support a principle or finding of fact that is based on the Universal Code of Conduct?
    Difficult to know the future. Historically I have been a bit of a quibbler, and I think I will continue like that. I tend to raise questions on issues arising from statements. Better to question and resolve, than to assume and accept/reject. Communication is key. See my response to TNT above for more of my thoughts on the Universal Code of Conduct. SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

question from lettherebedarklight

  2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I joined Wikipedia in January 2006 because the project excited me, and I wanted to be part of it. I have always been a writer, and I am curious and want to learn about things, so helping write an encyclopedia seemed (and still does) a natural fit. While I sometimes stick to one article for a long while, building on it, tinkering with it, occasionally taking it to GA or FA level, I mostly simply edit the articles I am currently reading. Fixing a few things here and there. I use Wikipedia the same as any other reader. I consult it for information. Mostly I am really impressed at the quality of the articles that we have, and I feel proud that I am part of this project that can provide the quality of impartial and easily accessible information that we do; but sometimes (as we all know) an article needs a little help to move it in the right direction. Perhaps a little bit of copyediting, sometimes a whole lot more! I used to say on my userpage that Wikipedia is like a house being built by the community, and I'm putting in my brick as I pass on by. And I still feel that way. I feel proud of the bricks that I have added, but I feel prouder still that this is a community built house. People from all around the world of all ages, genders, ethnicity, religions, abilities and disabilities, have come together here to make this encyclopedia; and it doesn't matter who we are in real life - right here on Wikipedia we can leave behind our age, gender, ethnicity, self-image doubts, etc, and partake on a level playing field if we wish, where all that matters is our character, personality, and willingness to help out. I love that. SilkTork (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Izno

  2. As a current or former arbitrator, you know ArbCom gets busy with appeals, casework, and other emails, as a matter of course. ArbCom also tries to improve its own processes or procedures in any given year to ease community use of the process or to decrease the amount of work it does. Now that discretionary sanctions are reformed (for some value of reformed :), what are the one or two things large things, or a few more small things, you think ArbCom should work on this year to improve its processes? Izno (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've long felt that ArmCom could be more transparent and use the mailing list rather less. And I've also long felt that ArbCom could one day be phased out completely - certainly in its current format. One of the things I like about Wikipedia is the transparency and openness of most of what we do. The ArbCom set up doesn't uphold those traditions as well as it could. I'd prefer to see privacy issues handled by WMF, and only where the issue might impinge on the project or community, should users on Wikipedia get involved. ArbCom was set up with privacy as the main focus, yet much of what the Committee does is not actually private, and it would be useful to hold the bulk of proceedings on Wikipedia. I'd perhaps like to see CUOS responsibility moved out of ArbCom and into an independent body. Essentially, I'd like to see ArbCom become simply the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kudpung

  2. Findings of Fact: Should the Committee have a duty to investigate the veracity of the de facto evidence presented by the complainant(s) and/or uninvolved commenters?
    The question implies that the Committee doesn't already have such a duty, which got me curious. In my time on the Committee when people raised concerns privately to the Committee, these were always checked carefully, and - depending on the nature of the issue - the Committee would sometimes seek independent veracity by asking a non-Arb Check-User to look at data. Evidence supplied during a public case is there for all to see, and when creating Findings of Fact, diffs are used which support the findings. It is not uncommon for Committee members to question those diffs and/or ask for more to be provided. So it is taken onboard by Committee members that they have a moral duty to check. But is that duty outlined in the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy? I had a look, and I couldn't see it. Should it be spelled out in the procedures? Possibly. I have worked with three different cohorts on the Committee, and noted the professionalism, maturity, sense of responsibility and duty that tends to be the norm for Committee members. The sort of person that gets elected to the Committee tends to be the sort of person that would feel it as their duty to check evidence. The drafter(s) of a case would have the initial responsibility to check details, and there may be at times the temptation to assume the drafter(s) had done their job properly; however, the strength of having a reasonably large Committee is that there is likely to be at least one person who would double check the diffs; added to which, if the community felt the evidence was insufficient or inappropriate, they would comment. I feel there is no harm in adding a clause to the procedures indicating that the Committee has a duty to check, just to remind people; though I don't feel it is a priority as the nature of the system we have already is probably robust enough. SilkTork (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In your opinion, are sitting arbitrators exempt from due process if and when they commit an indiscretion that would get a normal editor blocked or sanctioned?
    In my experience that is not the case. During my first year on the Committee, Elen of the Roads, a Committee member, was "reminded" on one occasion, and sanctioned on another. And, in perhaps more recent memory, Alex Shih, was also sanctioned. In my experience the Committee does not "protect its own", nor does it unduly lash out against Arbs who transgress while serving. And, since Hersford Courcelles pointed out the Super Mario effect (I can't remember which case he devised that - but it would have been around 2012-13)*, I think all Committees have been careful to ensure that those with higher functions are sanctioned appropriately. SilkTork (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC) *It was the TimidGuy case: [2] SilkTork (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Anythingyouwant

  2. Have you read both
    WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    They are both relatively new (the NOT one very new) and little used essays. Personally, I wouldn't use or support either, as
    WP:FALSEBALANCE give the more appropriate guidance. Every piece of information we add to an article needs to be weighed to assess its pertinence; while it is possible to write an essay on every example of where we are weighing the relevance or importance of a statement, the value of such essays are dubious (though can add lightness and humour, which may make the concepts easier to digest). SilkTork (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Candidates/SilkTork/Questions&oldid=1125903648"