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 WereSpielChequers (talk | contribs) at 18:09, 11 November 2019 (→Question from WereSpielChequers: thanks). 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?
    The inherent issue is that DS are predicated on behavior that's evident on-wiki. Paid editing is too often undisclosed, and I'm opposed to issuing DS based on suspicions. If a tightly defined case was filed illustrating that the community had tried and failed to deal with disclosed paid editing, I'd be in favor of authorizing DS. If someone is a blatant spammer or simply creating promotional pages, they can be blocked through normal process and DS aren't needed. --Laser brain (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?
    The Arbitration Committee has no business issuing endorsements on technical issues. It's a dispute resolution mechanism. --Laser brain (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?
    I agree that his admin flag was removed out-of-process and its restoration would be the correct outcome. Having him run through RFA again was setting him up to fail. --Laser brain (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, satisfied ;) - Tell the other candidates that it could be so easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[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?
    Nothing was actually solved because the remedies targeted symptoms of the base issue, I fully agree. If we have editors frequently losing their cool over a common issue, it's time for a sensible look at the root rather that slapping around the person who got caught in the melee. If a case filing fails to tightly identify an issue it should be declined. --Laser brain (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Leaky caldron

  2. 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?
    I recognize the bias. However, I don't believe that prolific content creators or prolific-anything should get a hall pass for poor behavior. There shouldn't be untouchable classes of editors here. To me, there are only two real classes: those who are here to improve the encyclopedia and those who are not. The latter should be shown the door without fanfare. Contributions come in many shapes and sizes and we shouldn't treat those with an interest in supporting work as second-class citizens. One thing I will say is that content creators tend to get swept up as participants in disputes related to institutional problems like the failure to deal with serially disruptive editors. As humans they sometimes react badly to those situations and are then treated as the problem rather than a symptom of the underlying issue. --Laser brain (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Joe Roe

  2. Criticism of arbitration decisions is inevitable. This criticism is often expressed in strong and personal terms. As an arbitrator, how will you respond to criticism, either of you personally or the committee as a whole? Do you think it will it affect your ability to remain objective?
    As an FAC coordinator and a long-time admin, I've received lots of criticism of my decisions and it is sometimes expressed in strong and personal terms. I have a thick skin and I focus on the fact that the person is upset about the situation and it's not about me. Taking responsibility for making decisions means accepting that you are sometimes the "face" of the decision and thus you will sometimes be the target of ire. I don't take it personally and I endeavor to remember there's a human behind every keyboard. --Laser brain (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WereSpielChequers

  2. 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).
    It's absolutely unacceptable to sanction an editor without a clear explanation of why, and whether there is a way forward. If we're saying to them that their involvement is no longer welcome on the project, that should be clearly stated as well. --Laser brain (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer. ϢereSpielChequers 18:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect

  2. Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?
  4. 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?
  6. 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?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Candidates/Laser_brain/Questions&oldid=925688026"