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

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?

   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)

Question from Carrite

2. 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

2. 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)

   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

2. 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

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?

   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.

Questions from Newslinger

2. 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

4. 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

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?