Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Cabayi/Questions: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:40, 25 November 2023

Arbitration Committee Election 2023 candidate: Cabayi

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

This year's committee has had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators. What experience do you have, particularly on Wikipedia, with doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Availability of time is seldom my limiting factor. For hard tasks I usually step back and try to rethink it from a different angle. There's usually an "easier" line of attack. For example, in our current discussion, Marshall McLuhan may be my key for examining it. Cabayi (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think ArbCom should be more transparent about the outcomes of private inquiries, especially regarding admins and functionaries? This question is motivated by the admin meatpuppetry situation in September, but it's up to you whether to discuss that situation in particular. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule we deliberate on-wiki evidence in public and off-wiki evidence in private. Confidential information (gathered as ArbCom, checkuser, oversight, or functionary) should be kept confidential even when the outcome is a block or a desysop. Doxxing is not something I'd want to see from ArbCom. ArbCom owes a good verdict for the good of the project. It doesn't owe a satisfying end to a story. Was there something you found deficient in the resolution to that case? Cabayi (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to avoid too leading a question, but if you'd like a more specific one: ArbCom's initial action in the case was to compel self-disclosure of the shared IPs, but to take no action regarding the meatpuppetry. The community only became aware of the issue because I chose to then take it to AN, which referred it back to ArbCom, which then was on the verge of accepting a case when both admins resigned. Do you feel that ArbCom handled my initial private report appropriately? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of ArbCom's workload is in handling private matters, not public ones such as cases. Can you please elaborate on how you will handle the large volume of private work the Committee receives? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the composition of next year's committee Eek, the loss of the Arb herder Izno will leave a large gap in getting Arbitrators to attend to the outstanding tasks. I will continue to comment early when I see things clearly, and to wait for wiser eyes than mine when I don't. The committee's geographical distribution will probably continue to mean I'm either among the early comments, or the issue will be settled by the time I see it. Cabayi (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In one case this year, ArbCom themselves served as the "filing party", accepting a case that had not immediately been brought to them. What are your thoughts on ArbCom taking actions via full cases when they don't have a request from the community to do so? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That case was not brought on-wiki which put ArbCom in the position of stepping in as the "filing party" for the record. A more "involved" example would be the Lourdes case request filed by an arbitrator who recused. Arbitrators are still community members with all that entails, only needing to maintain a visible disinterest in the cases they handle. Cabayi (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom seems to limit itself to a very narrow range of responses to admins, with nothing in the gap between admonition and desysopping. What sort of things should it do when admonition isn't enough but a desysop is too much?Ϣere SpielChequers 09:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have struggled with this issue. We have three flavours of response - caution, warning and admonishment - which vary only in the tone of stern voice and level of finger wagging. Then a large gap to the major sanction of desysop. Anything we have been able to conjure up that could fill that gap would also undermine the admin's credibility needed to perform the admin role effectively and authoritatively. It's a conundrum. If you have ideas for ArbCom I can promise you 15 eager recipients regardless of whether I am still in that number. Cabayi (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past, and there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force. Tension on the talkpage of the Elbonian civil war has spilled out into an acrimonious RFA for one of the protagonists, and the press have reported demonstrations about this article in the capital town of Elbonia and in several villages during the current visit of the US president to Elbonia. Cases being filed with Arbcom include: You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility; Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager; Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. Which bits of the Universal Code of Conduct have been breached by this kerfuffle and what if anything should Arbcom do about it? Ϣere SpielChequers 09:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past" - there has. From my perspective, the WMF are now more aware that they need to act with, and in support of, the community structures such as ArbCom rather than undermining or bypassing them. ArbCom are more aware of the need to keep a tidy house (for want of a better metaphor).
"there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force" - (according to the sales pitch) The UCoC was crafted to encapsulate the basics of good behaviour as defined in enwiki's policies and apply them across all WMF's projects. As such enwiki is the project least likely to need recourse to UCoC remedies. Our own home-grown policies should have tried-and-trusted pathways to resolve relevant issues.
To your Elbonian issues...
The RFA, its conduct, considering the legitimacy of votes cast, considering whether votes were solicited on the Elbonian wiki, and discerning the RFA'a outcome are in the care of the crats such as yourself.
On the evidence presented, as an arbitrator, I'd be voting to decline the case requests as there is no evidence of any prior attempts at dispute resolution. I'll assume for the purposes of the question that the proper pre-arbitration steps have been taken.
You don't specify whether the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage was reverted or self-reverted. It's not a desysop issue unless the longstanding admin refuses to see any problem with their action. As the case has presumably been discussed on the longstanding admin's user talk page and at WP:AN prior to the case request we may be looking at an admin who has lost touch with community expectations of how their tools are to be used.
Absent any specifics I'm unsure whether our new young admin is being doxxed (oversight action perhaps leading to an oversight bloc of the doxxer) or where it's a plain old personal attack which is best handled as an admin action (perhaps by an arbitrator).
Having disposed of the issues under enwiki policy, I don't see a need to dip into the Universal Code of Conduct toolbox for remedies.
FWIW, I have on one occasion privately suggested a remedy under UCoC. As in the examples you present, the issue got resolved through more customary means. Cabayi (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I love to sing the music of Mozart and Pärt, Requiem and Da pacem Domine. What does the RfC about an infobox for Mozart tell you regarding WP:CT infoboxes, and can you offer ideas towards peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for standing as a candidate for the ArbCom. You maybe be familiar with a recent Law and Social Inquiry article titled "Canceling Disputes: How Social Capital Affects the Arbitration of Disputes on Wikipedia" that was the subject of the current article on the Signpost. In addition, a previous paper from 2017 in International Sociology also examined similar trends from the ArbCom. In short, these papers argue about the existence of external factors influencing ArbCom decisions such as editor tenure, and raise concerns about canvasing among others. Are you concerned about the issues presented in the articles, or do you have any other concerns about the structure or operations of the ArbCom?
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the World War II and history of Jews in Poland case, you opposed a site ban for Volunteer Marek, on the grounds that "a site ban is premature", albeit "by nowhere near as wide a margin as VM would hope". I have two questions regarding this vote: (1) What would have been enough in this case to warrant a site ban, given Wugapodes' rationale laying out years of misconduct, including after previous topic and interaction bans? (2) Are you concerned that votes like this might send a message that some editors, particularly long-term editors with many friends, are treated differently than other editors? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the previous question cites Wugapodes’s rationale, I’m interested in your answer to this along with that: Excluding Wugapodes’s conclusion that the evidence was enough to merit a site ban, do you disagree with Wugapodes’s analysis in any meaningful way and why? —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 02:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 #{{ACE Question
 |Q=In the World War II and history of Jews in Poland case, you [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Proposed decision#Volunteer Marek banned|opposed]] a site ban for Volunteer Marek, on the grounds that "a site ban is premature", albeit "by nowhere near as wide a margin as VM would hope". I have two questions regarding this vote: (1) What would have been enough in this case to warrant a site ban, given Wugapodes' rationale laying out years of misconduct, including after previous topic and interaction bans? (2) Are you concerned that votes like this might send a message that some editors, particularly long-term editors with many friends, are treated differently than other editors? [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 18:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
+|A=}}
+#{{ACE Question
+|Q=Since the previous question cites Wugapodes’s rationale, I’m interested in your answer to this along with that: Excluding Wugapodes’s conclusion that the evidence was enough to merit a site ban, do you disagree with Wugapodes’s analysis in any meaningful way and why? —[[User:Danre98|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Danre98</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Danre98|<span style="color:Teal">talk</span>]]^[[Special:Contributions/Danre98|<span style="color:purple">contribs</span>]])</sup> 02:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 |A=}}