Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Fish and karate/Questions: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:28, 11 November 2019

Latest revision as of 17:09, 15 November 2019

(14 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)

Line 42:

#{{ACE Question

|Q=Fair, only (my pov:) I get suspicious when even the things ''on'' the scene are questionable, which gives me no trust in those ''behind'' the scene. - Finally, which remedy would you have supported.

|A=I would have supported the remedy to end Fram's ban, a ban was excessive (based on the information available, which may not be all of it). I would have supported the remedy to keep the desysop in place as I agree that Fram's behaviour was unacceptable at times for an administrator, and it was nowhere near the first time it had been raised (and that is without seeing what the private evidence was).

|A=

}}

Line 62:

#{{ACE Question

|Q=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. 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 the symptom?

|A=I would not, in this case; Arbcom do not officiate over content, and the existence of infoboxes is not for Arbcom to adjudicate. Arbcom exists to address behavioural issues from users who are unwilling or unable to deal with other people in a civil and collegiate way. I will provide a fuller response and address the full scope of your question if you rephrasedo me the favour of rephrasing your question to avoid uncivilthe unnecessary and uncollegiateuncivil terms suchyou've asused ("ham-fisted", "biased", and "not being impartial").

}}

*I guess you'll remain silent then. You won't be getting my vote. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Cassianto</span>]]^{[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Talk</span>]]}</span>''' 17:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

===Question from Leaky caldron===

Line 70 ⟶ 71:

|Q=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?

|A=They should be treated in exactly the same way as everyone else. No user is more important than the project, irrespective of the volume of content provided. If policies are broached by a prolific content creator this must be addressed in the same way as a breach by users who prefer to support Wikipedia in other ways. To do otherwise would be to open an unmanageable Pandora's box of value judgments and undefinable boundaries for what does and does not constitute 'prolific', and for that matter what constitutes 'content' and 'creator'.}}

#{{ACE Question

|Q=So you believe that there is no problem? No differentiated treatment, intentional or otherwise?

|A=I did not say that. It is common knowledge that prolific content creators (and many administrators) are at times granted leeway ("net positive") others are not. This is a short-term utilitarian view of things that ignores the possibility/fact that allowing a select few to get away with rank incivility, gaming to get rid of "enemies", or other rule-breaking fosters a general perception that there are cliques of users who may say and act in ways others may not, and actively contributes in the long-term towards driving swathes of users away from the project, reducing the diversity and knowledge base of editors and making Wikipedia a place for the few, not the many. My point above was this should not be the case and should absolutely not be enshrined in policy.}}

#{{ACE Question

|Q=In what way is it short term? It has been endemic and unchallenged for more than a decade. What will you be doing about it when cases land in your AC in-tray?

|A=It is short-term in that granting leeway to prolific content creators is a short-term view of things (sorry if that was not clear) - it may be 'better' for the encyclopedia in the short-term, but in the long-term it is harmful. I didn't say it was a short-term problem.}}

===Questions from Joe Roe===

Line 85 ⟶ 94:

::12 months later, the underlying dispute was still festering and I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=886700381 pinged you] to ask for a more detailed closure. You didn't respond. My take on this sequence of events is that you basically chose to put yourself in the role of dispute-resolver, but to ''not'' help to resolve anything. My question is: Did you think your actions in this RfC helped the community with its efforts to resolve a dispute, and if so why do you think they were helpful? |A=Just to note that to ping me you are better off using the {{tlx|ping}} template, not just put my name in a <nowiki>[[User:foo]]</nowiki> link, which only works intermittently); I did not get your ping but still I apologise for not responding. The RfC was far too complicated - RFCs work best for a binary choice - seven proposed options is five too many. But that is an aside. I did not address the options discussed because the issue had been resolved/withdrawn, and to do so would have been rather presumptuous - I know if I had withdrawn an RFC I would expect it to be treated as such. Your take - that I chose to put myself in the role of dispute-resolver but not to address the dispute - would not be one I agree with. Closing RFCs that have been withdrawn is a point of process; if you wanted a detailed addressing of the issues that you perceived still existed then there was nothing stopping you in the intervening 12 months from opening another RFC and doing so, nor is there now.}}

:::: I see you've withdrawn from the election, but just wanted to say thanks for letting me know about the ping issue - I had no idea! And thanks for running :) [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 17:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

===Question from WereSpielChequers===

#{{ACE Question

|Q=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).

|A=Well, in clear and obvious cases of vandalism, hate speech and so on then yes, but that would be an indefinite block and not really what you're asking. A fixed-term block assumes the user is redeemable as the block is in place for a defined period and therefore for a specific reason or reasons, all of which should be intended to a) protect users and/or b) protect the project, and is placed with the intention to engender an improvement in behaviour. With that in mind then yes, I would expect almost all fixed-term blocks, particularly of actual accounts - a short-term dynamic IP etc. may be less requiring of this - to include informing the blocked user why, and what needs to change. Obviously things are at times nuanced and this may not always be appropriate, particularly if the reason for the block is sensitive.}}

===Questions from [[User:Collect|Collect]] ===

# {{ACE Question|Q=Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases? |A=}}

# {{ACE Question|Q= 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? |A=}}

# {{ACE Question|Q= 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? |A=}}

===Questions from [[User:Caker18|Caker18]]===

#{{ACE Question

|Q=Can you provide an example of you mediating a conflict where both parties were mutually hostile?

|A=}}

===Question from [[User:SQL|SQL]]===

#{{ACE Question

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

|A=}}