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=}}

Question from Gerda

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]

Question from Carrite

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]

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).
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]

Question from 54129

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?
(for those not aware, SN 54129 is quoting comments made by Iridescent at my second RFB)
I am aware that I have been criticized for disregarding common sense in favor of slavishly following written policy and I have and will admit that I did make mistakes in this regard. As I have previously stated, I found RFB #2 a very helpful discussion and while it failed, it provided me with a lot of valuable feedback on my editing. I think I have demonstrated that I have grown as an editor and admin when it comes to these problem areas but it's ultimately for the community to judge whether they are satisfied with my progress. As with RFB #2, I'm grateful for everyone voicing criticism that I can use to improve. Regards So Why 15:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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?
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Generally speaking, walled gardens are rarely a positive development, be it articles or groups of people, seeing as it usually stifles innovation and carries the risk of creating an environment impervious even to necessary changes. Regards So Why 20:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?
Hard to answer generally. Functionaries and other editors with advanced permissions are still people with a private life and not barred from discussing Wikipedia and its editors on other platforms. Those doing so should always remember though that their actions will reflect back on their work on the project and exercise restraint, especially when their comments might possibly be construed as being in favor of the kind of behavior you mention. And for ArbCom members, voters can always take such information into consideration after all. Regards So Why 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 don't think I have participated in any unblock discussion recently. My editing in the last few months was mostly focused on article writing, especially the FAC for Adele Spitzeder with some deletion tasks. Regards So Why 16:16, 12 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?
I think this is certainly something that appears to happen sometimes, although I'm not aware of any hard data. Just like some people will expect adminship candidates to be content creators despite not everyone being equally skilled at all tasks (something I have remarked upon in the past). I believe every contributor ending up at Arbitration should be treated the same because any preconceived notions (be it "content creator", "admin", "crat" etc.) are a problem when the goal is to get to the bottom of things and (possibly) sanction the offending party. After all, what good is 1 FA-creator, when they have bitten so many newbies that the project lost 10 potential FA-creators? Regards So Why 16:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Rschen7754

Your candidacy for oversight was not successful in 2017. Was there any reason presented to you as to why it was not and/or do you think that it has any bearing on this election? --Rs chen 7754 19:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Newslinger

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

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?