Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Laser brain/Questions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019 | Candidates | Laser brain
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Laser brain (talk | contribs) at 14:05, 10 November 2019 (→Question from Banedon: placeholder). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Peacemaker67

  2. 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?
    As I mentioned in my statement, ArbCom should be a mechanism of last resort. I think the decision to accept the case was a poor one based on the initial filing. That said, ANI can be ineffective at handling long-term behavioral issues and if a tightly defined case had been made detailing such issues with illustrations that community options had been exhausted, accepting would be reasonable. --Laser brain (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Rschen7754

  2. Why did you resign adminship in 2017? --Rschen7754 05:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time, I had become quite disillusioned with the project owing to my perception that administrators are given a hall pass for poor behavior while standard editors are treated harshly. There was a particular incident in which an admin told an editor to "shove something up his ass". This was an admin who in my eyes already had a very poor track record of unprofessional and authoritarian behavior. An editor responded by suggesting their "days are numbered" and received a three-month block for harassment, while the original admin just went on their way. The incident upset me and I decided to disengage to reflect on my priorities and my desire to further participate in the project. --Laser brain (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carrite

  2. What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
    The biggest problem is that findings and remedies are often non-authoritative or are issued with language that makes interpretation difficult and subjective. There is a causation here as well of cases being accepted based on unclear goals. The admins trying to make use of discretionary sanctions or trying to work at WP:AE have a difficult time, and editors are frequently bewildered as to why they ran afoul of a ruling. It's fixable. Cases should be accepted only as a matter of last resort and when the problem and goals are clear. Findings and remedies should be written to minimize interpretive issues. Finally, the ruling should be sensible and logical (hence authoritative), not "because we said so". --Laser brain (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Banedon

  2. Were there any votes in the last few years which you would have voted against what turned out to be the majority decision? If so, which, and why?
    One immediately pops into mind but I want to take a day to review some other cases in memory and give you the best answer possible. --Laser brain (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If the answer to the above is no, how would you have voted on certain remedies that split the current committee? Feel free to pick your own remedies; otherwise you can also choose from these: [1], [2], [3]. (Feel free to answer this question as well even if the answer to the above is "yes", although it likely won't be necessary.)

Questions from Newslinger

  2. When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?
  4. To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?

Question from Gerda

  2. I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. Imagine you had been an arb, what would you have written in reply?

Question from Cassianto

  2. 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, as you well know. As someone who is acutely aware of the kind of disruption that IB discussions bring, 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 a symptom?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Candidates/Laser_brain/Questions&oldid=925498236"