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

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. If you had been an arb then, what might you have replied, and/or which of the remedies under 2 would you have supported?
I probably would have agreed with you. If we want to argue that the Foundation cannot interfere in matters that should be the purview of ArbCom, any interference that happens should be reversed for procedural reasons alone (with no prejudice for or against whether the removal would be or have been warranted after an ArbCom case). Regards So Why 11:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, satisfied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
Every body that is designed to adjudicate over difficult problems as the highest level of jurisdiction has to contend with the fact that most difficult problems have no clear solution that everyone will accept. Human nature, as Thryduulf also alluded to in his answer, requires an instance of dispute resolution whose rulings are final. ArbCom, like all such bodies, is inherently flawed because there is no way (I can think of) to design such a body in a way that makes everyone happy. I believe, however, that if the Committee works in a transparent and open way, gives all parties opportunity to present their case and consists of a good mix of Arbitrators from different backgrounds and philosophies, it can at least try to find solutions that are as good as possible and are thus accepted by as many people as possible, even if they disagree with it. Regards So Why 13:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).
Short answer: Generally no. Longish answer: Blocks are by design preventative, not punitive, so there might be cases where blocking an editor without telling them might be required; maybe if there is a compromised account where you don't want the person in control to know that you are onto them for example. But since time-limited blocks are usually applied to stop a certain disruption but where one expects that the disruption will not be repeated, the person blocked needs to be aware why they were blocked (so they know what not to repeat). Of course, if an editor knows exactly whey they were blocked, telling them again would not strictly be necessary, although I'd tell them again, just to be safe. Regards So Why 13:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How useful do you believe qualities such as a rigid adherence to written policy over common sense from a candidate whose intentional disruption of the deletion queues and hassling of any admins who fail to follow his WP:CCSI literalist interpretation of policy is very much ongoing is going to be in any iteration of the committee?

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?

Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?