Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/DGG/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 which of the remedies under 2 would you have supported?
At a slightly earlier case involving Fram (started in 2018 carried over into 2019) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman, I was one of the two admins who supported a proposed remedy that "Fram is reminded to conduct themselves appropriately when communicating with other editors." But in the context of the later Fram case, the actions of the WMF had contaminated the possibilities of considering any sanctions. It was necessary to make it unambiguously clear that such fundamentally unfair ways of proceeding were never acceptable, so desysop should not have been considered. Personally, I would anticipate Fram would themself demonstrate how very wrong the WMF action would have been.

Thank you, satisfied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carrite

What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
Arbcom at the beginning dealt with relatively straight-forward problems, and basic definitions of policy; cases in the future will mostly deal with the most difficult situations and policy ambiguities, and will not always have satisfactory solutions in the usual sense.

Questions from Thryduulf

What, objectively, is the problem with undisclosed paid editing (by it's nature a content issue) that brings it within Arbcom's remit? Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The widespread presence of promotional content is a content issue, and that is the responsibility of the community to remove. Editing by undeclared paid COI editors is a conduct issue--it is editing in bad faith, in a manner which tried to evade having the community properly evaluate the content problems. It's inextricably linked with sockpuppettry, the basic form of bad faith editing, which also usually produced bad content. Removing the bad content is the job of the community; removing the bad faith contributors is the job of the administrators backed up by CU and ArbCom. Arb com generally need not directly act on routine UPE any more than on routine sockpuppettry, but the seriousness with which ArbCom see the problem, lets the admins and CUs deal with it. I recall a view on arb com (I obviously can't quote or attribute it more specifically) that the committee would not backup admins who blocked for UPE, and might even consider it abuse of their admin rights..

Question from SQL

Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?
In the committee and elsewhere, a decision to unblock requires a determination of the honesty and candidness of the applicant. There is no fair way of doing this by text communications on wiki or by email. We have been judging too much by the individual's willingness to admit what they did wrong, and this is in effect an encouragement for hypocrisy. The only practical approach is to give people a chance to show their improvement, and monitor closely, for those where the prior conduct does not make this too great a risk. I can therefore not say I am proud of anything we have done; if the right decision is made, it is by chance.

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?
The issue was so potentially disruptive and the implications so serious that we could not have avoided it. It was a reasonable assumption that no other process would have been sufficient. The role of the committee is not to resolve conflicts; the role is to prevent or at least discourage continuing disruption.

I would say that the banning was a walk-up start and should have been handled at ANI, but the rest has had little effect on either side of what was basically a content dispute. It was a huge time sink and the benefits were minimal because it was almost entirely about content, not conduct, and ArbCom isn't here to look at content. It has also been weaponised against good-faith editors, with a recent attempt to re-litigate it. I hope ArbCom will steer clear of these sorts of cases in the future, unless behavioural problems have proved intractable and unable to be dealt with at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Newslinger

When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?
.I assume you are asking about undeclared paid editing , "UPE". (declared paid editing� is permitted, and it is only necessary to check that the rules for disclosure are followed) Dealing with UPE is not an appropriate use of DS: DSs should not be thought of more strict or more formal types of sanction; rather, the distinctive purpose of DS is stability of sanctions where opinion is divided;, which is not the case here. Ordinary blocks quickly and firmly applied , together with careful sockpuppet investigations and range blocks when applicable are the way to go here. More generally, I have previously when on arb com expressed doubts about the way Discretionary Sanctions are used in general, and I more recently commented on this further at the Arb Com talk page
To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?
It would be a very good idea if it worked more smoothly. But this is up to the WMF, and our role would be in not letting it be forced upon us until they get it better.

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).
No, and not just in relation to Fram.

Questions from Collect

Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?
There are various degrees of involvement. I can recall only one instance where some of the arbs thought privately that a particular arb should recuse, but he declined to do so. We have procedures for forcing this, but nobody felt it was so serious as to require it. . What is much more common is arbs recusing themselves even when there is no real need to. I can give an exact example, for it concerned me. A named party thought I was prejudiced against him in the gneral area and asked me to recuse; I replied that I could judge matters hings fairly, but would recuse if he inisted, and I warned him that I would then be able to instead give evidence, and the overall situation would not necessarily be for his befit. He replied that he understood, but still wanted me to recuse. I did. In the end he would indeed have been better off had I not recused, for I would have supported a lighter sanction than the one the rest of the committee decided to apply, and I might have been able to influence them.
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?
This needs to be adjusted to the circumstances; lately, he arb com does not do this direct, but relies upon the judgment of the clerks.
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?
It is difficult to specify the possible range of situations in detail, but of course people need an opportunity to reply. In general, though, an arb who has important evidence should recuse, and offer it in the normal way. Much more important, the wording of this question implies there is an "accused". The purpose of arb com is not to try accusations and issue punishments, but to try to prevent further disruption.. This necessarily requires some formal court-like procedure for discerning the facts of a situation, but the need for formal procedures should not dominate the proceedings.

Questions from Piotrus

Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [1]. in which I concldued that "A practical recommendation for Wikipedia in particular, and for other communities with collegiate courts in general, is that when electing members to their dispute resolution bodies, those communities would do well to pay attention to how much time the prospective future judges can devote to this volunteering task." In other words, may Arbitrators become inactive due to real world reasons (family, job) and this is not an exception but a rule, repeated time and again throughout ArbCom history. Do you think there is any practical way to deal with this, such as, for example, asking Arbitrators to obligatorily describe, in their election process, how they plan to ensure they have sufficient free time to devote to this activity?
I am rather puzzled about [2]. What do you mean by this, particularly in light of "wrong editor banned"? Who do you think shouldn't have been banned, who should have been banned, and why?
If you were involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland, would you have objected to any decisions that passed there, and proposed anything that would be significantly different from what was passed?
Further, since in the diff above you mention Haaretz article (for which I was interviewed), which claims (if any) presented in it do you think are worth investigating further? What merits, if any, do you see in it? For further context, please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/In the media which links my reply to Haaretz as well as an essay on this issue by retired user Poeticbent. Does having read the three linked pieces (Signpost, my reply, Poeticbent's reply) change your views on this incident in any way? In your view, which party makes a better argument here? And do you think there is anything in this series of incident that remains unresolved, or resolved improperly, and merits future action by ArbCom?