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

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

---

Question from SQL

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

   I tend to stay away from the drama board and I believe the only one I have participated lately concerned Winkelvi. I wouldn't necessarily say I'm proud I took place in that discussion, but I said what needed to be said.

Question from Praxidicae

2. 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?

   I'm not sure I can really answer this unless I know the context behind it.

4. You've been blocked 3 times for harassment, personal attacks and misuse of advanced tools. Can you please explain those blocks and provide diffs following the last one that demonstrate your ability to calmly and appropriately handle a difficult situation?

   The 2011 block was for telling another user to "fuck off" because I felt he had been edit warring with me and unnecessarily templated me. In 2012, I told an editor who was harassing me to "fuck off" (I'm consistent at least) for leaving me comments like [1]; that account wound up being a sock of a banned user. The most recent one was for edit warring in a topic area I care too much about, and have since stayed away from that area.

Question from 28bytes

2. I can't seem to find any articles you've created recently. When did you last create an article, and why did you stop?

   I believe the last one I wrote was Mike Hazen in 2015. I haven't created any since then because article writing isn't necessarily my strong suit and my time could be better spent doing more gnomish things. I do wish to get back into writing some day, however.

Question from Gerda

2. 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?

   I would generally agree with your sentiment, though I must admit my opinion could change based on whatever evidence the committee received in private. But I believe desysoppings on the English Wikipedia should be done by those involved in the English Wikipedia, whether it be the committee or possibly one day the community itself.

4. When I wrote that, remedy 2a was available, - would that have been for you?

   If you are asking if I would have supported the proposed remedy 2A (reinstating his adminship), my answer is yes.

   Thank you, satisfied. I guess you are aware that you would have been in a minority then, but it could change ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Carrite

2. What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?

   I believe the committee needs to have membership that better represents the community as whole, and not just certain subgroups of the community. Is it fixable? Yes. The community can do a better job vetting candidates.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Ched

2. If you're elected, will you be running a RfA? Why or why not?

   I have little to no interest in being an admin. I might, however, need access to deleted edits, as an arbitrator but I believe those would be accessible using with the oversight permission.

4. You stated back in June that you would not run for Arbcom ([2]); what changed your mind?

   Another user said that, not me.

My mistake - apologies. — Ched (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from OhKayeSierra

2. While it's normally been customary on the English Wikipedia for arbitrators to demonstrate their trust for the role by being sysops first, there is no hard and fast rule against non-sysops running for ArbCom or even serving if elected to the role. However, for myself and (in my opinion) for the majority of the community, there needs to be a demonstrated trust to effectively handle confidentiality, since sensitive tools such as oversight and CheckUser are customarily assigned to arbitrators and are occasionally used as part of the case process. Can you please explain why the community should entrust you with these sensitive tools, and how you felt that you have earned that trust from the community?

   I feel like I have always been a straight shooter and the community will be able to see that by looking over my history here.

4. As far as I can tell, this is your fourth time running as an ArbCom candidate (having run as Hot Stop in WP:ACE2011, and then Calidum in WP:ACE2014 and WP:ACE2016). What, in your opinion, has changed since your previous runs, and why do you think the community should trust you to be an arbitrator?

   In 2016, I did receive support from 55% of voters. While this wasn't enough to win a seat because others finished above me, it was above the 50% threshold to be elected.

Questions from Newslinger

2. When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?

4. To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?

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?

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?

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: [3], [4], [5]. (Feel free to answer this question as well even if the answer to the above is "yes", although it likely won't be necessary.)

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).

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?