Let's assume, and quite reasonably so, that there are some policies and guidelines that WP:IAR could never trump under any circumstances. WP:BLP immediately comes to mind, as well as other situations with real-world consequences, such as harassment etc. What policies or guidelines might WP:IAR trump? Specifically, for example, could it trump WP:CONSENSUS? How would you deal with a situation in which you felt the consensus was meaningfully wrong?
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?
As I mentioned in my statement, ArbCom should be a mechanism of last resort. I think the decision to accept the case was a poor one based on the initial filing. That said, ANI can be ineffective at handling long-term behavioral issues and if a tightly defined case had been made detailing such issues with illustrations that community options had been exhausted, accepting would be reasonable. --Laser brain(talk) 00:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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) 03:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Rschen7754
Why did you resign adminship in 2017? --Rschen7754 05:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, I had become quite disillusioned with the project owing to my perception that administrators are given a hall pass for poor behavior while standard editors are treated harshly. There was a particular incident in which an admin told an editor to "shove something up his ass". This was an admin who in my eyes already had a very poor track record of unprofessional and authoritarian behavior. An editor responded by suggesting their "days are numbered" and received a three-month block for harassment, while the original admin just went on their way. The incident upset me and I decided to disengage to reflect on my priorities and my desire to further participate in the project. --Laser brain(talk) 13:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
The biggest problem is that findings and remedies are often non-authoritative or are issued with language that makes interpretation difficult and subjective. There is a causation here as well of cases being accepted based on unclear goals. The admins trying to make use of discretionary sanctions or trying to work at WP:AE have a difficult time, and editors are frequently bewildered as to why they ran afoul of a ruling. It's fixable. Cases should be accepted only as a matter of last resort and when the problem and goals are clear. Findings and remedies should be written to minimize interpretive issues. Finally, the ruling should be sensible and logical (hence authoritative), not "because we said so". --Laser brain(talk) 14:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've got another one for you, Andy... In your statement you indicate that you have been a Wikipedia editor since 2008. Your very first edit, made on January 23, 2008, does not appear to be a first edit of a new participant, however, being a comment on a piece in the Featured Article Candidates queue that asks why the term "earmarked" is "wikilinked." Did you have a previous account at WP, and if so, what was the name of that account? How did you as a newcomer come to jump into an internal discussion about a "roads" article as to whether it meets advanced internal quality standards?
And another. I see from your May 2009 RFA, in which you passed 125-0, you were asked TWO questions during the RFA process and only answered 1/5 of ONE of them. Was failing to answer questions at RFA an intentional strategy? Do you feel you were adequately vetted by the community during that 2009 campaign?
Question from Banedon
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?
One immediately pops into mind but I want to take a day to review some other cases in memory and give you the best answer possible. --Laser brain(talk) 14:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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: [1], [2], [3]. (Feel free to answer this question as well even if the answer to the above is "yes", although it likely won't be necessary.)
The inherent issue is that DS are predicated on behavior that's evident on-wiki. Paid editing is too often undisclosed, and I'm opposed to issuing DS based on suspicions. If a tightly defined case was filed illustrating that the community had tried and failed to deal with disclosed paid editing, I'd be in favor of authorizing DS. If someone is a blatant spammer or simply creating promotional pages, they can be blocked through normal process and DS aren't needed. --Laser brain(talk) 14:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?
The Arbitration Committee has no business issuing endorsements on technical issues. It's a dispute resolution mechanism. --Laser brain(talk) 14:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Gerda
I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. Imagine you had been an arb, what would you have written in reply?
I agree that his admin flag was removed out-of-process and its restoration would be the correct outcome. Having him run through RFA again was setting him up to fail. --Laser brain(talk) 15:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, satisfied ;) - Tell the other candidates that it could be so easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Cassianto
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, as you well know. As someone who is acutely aware of the kind of disruption that IB discussions bring, 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 a symptom?
Nothing was actually solved because the remedies targeted symptoms of the base issue, I fully agree. If we have editors frequently losing their cool over a common issue, it's time for a sensible look at the root rather that slapping around the person who got caught in the melee. If a case filing fails to tightly identify an issue it should be declined. --Laser brain(talk) 17:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How refreshing to hear. Thank you for taking the time to answer. CassiantoTalk 09:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Leaky caldron
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?
I recognize the bias. However, I don't believe that prolific content creators or prolific-anything should get a hall pass for poor behavior. There shouldn't be untouchable classes of editors here. To me, there are only two real classes: those who are here to improve the encyclopedia and those who are not. The latter should be shown the door without fanfare. Contributions come in many shapes and sizes and we shouldn't treat those with an interest in supporting work as second-class citizens. One thing I will say is that content creators tend to get swept up as participants in disputes related to institutional problems like the failure to deal with serially disruptive editors. As humans they sometimes react badly to those situations and are then treated as the problem rather than a symptom of the underlying issue. --Laser brain(talk) 18:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Explain why the User pages of these 2 individuals, both responsible for operating multiple accounts for the purpose of deception and subject to Arbcom sanctions, should be treated differently. User:A_Nobody, User:Eric Corbett.
Questions from Joe Roe
Criticism of arbitration decisions is inevitable. This criticism is often expressed in strong and personal terms. As an arbitrator, how will you respond to criticism, either of you personally or the committee as a whole? Do you think it will it affect your ability to remain objective?
As an FAC coordinator and a long-time admin, I've received lots of criticism of my decisions and it is sometimes expressed in strong and personal terms. I have a thick skin and I focus on the fact that the person is upset about the situation and it's not about me. Taking responsibility for making decisions means accepting that you are sometimes the "face" of the decision and thus you will sometimes be the target of ire. I don't take it personally and I endeavor to remember there's a human behind every keyboard. --Laser brain(talk) 23:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer to my first question, which is a general one I'm asking all candidates. I notice you've personally been quite strong in your criticism, having described the current ArbCom as "incompetent" and "disgraceful" and other functionaries as "authoritarian". In retrospect, would you say that this is an appropriate way to comment on ArbCom and/or other editors in general? Given that several of the arbitrators you consider incompetent will remain on the committee next year, do you envisage any problems working with us if elected?
Joe Roe This is a great and fair question, and actually it's one that I hope anyone would face who's been critical of ArbCom. I think there's a difference between being critical of a body ("Congress is incompetent and disgraceful" vs leveling attacks at individual members. I believe people are smart and well-intentioned, but groups can be rendered ineffective by poor procedure, lack of transparency, and groupthink. --Laser brain(talk) 04:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To what extent, if any, do you think significant contributions to content mitigates disruptive conduct elsewhere?
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).
It's absolutely unacceptable to sanction an editor without a clear explanation of why, and whether there is a way forward. If we're saying to them that their involvement is no longer welcome on the project, that should be clearly stated as well. --Laser brain(talk) 17:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer. ϢereSpielChequers 18:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?
If going by the WP:INVOLVED definition then yes. Involvement is a fuzzy area. Arbs ought to have the common sense to recuse when they're incapable of being impartial, even if they don't meet the technical definition of involved. --Laser brain(talk) 22:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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?
If you mean that a person's time limit should be factored in some way by how many charges they have to answer, then yes. --Laser brain(talk) 22:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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?
Yes, no one should have an evidence bomb dropped on them without the opportunity to review and respond. --Laser brain(talk) 22:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an example of you mediating a conflict where both parties were mutually hostile?
Sure, nominations at WP:FAC can get heated and nominators sometimes get embroiled in personal conflict with reviewers over disagreements. One that sticks in memory is the series of nominations for Jill Valentine. The nominator frequently had heated debates with reviewers and one in particular ended up at ANI where he requested an interaction ban with the reviewer in question. As a coordinator I tried to keep everyone's time and attention focused on the important matter—content—and separate the personal conflicts that needed to be examined and handled on their own. --Laser brain(talk) 13:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?
This one sticks in recent memory. SashiRolls ended up displaying more poor behavior since his unblock and has since been blocked and sanctioned numerous times, but I stand by my statement that "everyone aside from outright trolls and vandals should have a way forward". I believed then and now that this editor has something positive to offer Wikipedia and I find myself arguing for unblocks a lot more frequently than blocks, for that reason. --Laser brain(talk) 13:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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?
Anyone violating the trust of the community by disclosing non-public information with anyone who's not authorized to receive such information should have their permissions and positions revoked. Im assuming you're referencing an actual situation that's occurred but since you haven't provided any details, I'm answering in a general way. I am a vigorous data privacy advocate and I take breaches very seriously. --Laser brain(talk) 15:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How would you contextualise Peacemaker67's question on the 2018 GWE arbitration case with the more recent suggestion by one sitting arbitrator, who advised Peacemaker...Be careful that MILHIST doesn't become a place where that groupthink crowds out those who genuinely disagree, and another that MILHIST was counsel[ed]...to bear in mind that it does risk becoming a walled garden?
Groupthink is a problem in every body in which I've operated, including FAC. When MilHist disputes spill over, they tend to be more visible because of the size and output of the project. It is another argument for transparency and the value of external examination of any process. Neither MilHist nor ArbCom should operate in a vacuum. Although this body isn't about content disputes, I think it's imperative for the committee to have people who thoroughly understand the content creation process and how it plays with interpersonal disputes and behavioral issues. --Laser brain(talk) 22:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Over this page, all of the arbitrators (sans PMC, who responded a single time) refused to engage a multitude of queries and concerns from multiple longstanding members of the community, despite the case being entirely situated on public evidence.Do you feel that the displayed behavior abides by general community expectations of arbitrator conduct? Some have since stated that the concurrently running FRAMGATE meant that they had to be less devoted to this case; in such a situation, how would you have tackled this case (if anything different, at all)?
Your fellow candidate, Gadfium writes:- Arbs should be highly responsive to community concerns on the talk pages of cases and that anyone who expresses an honest and constructive opinion should be taken seriously. Do you agree with the premises of these statements?
Can you provide one diff of a well reasoned argument where you disagreed with the majority and took an unpopular view? The more recent, the more unpopular, the better.
Nearly every case, that are being brought before the committee, involves skirting of the civility policy in some way or the other, that may not be always bright-line violations on a per se basis. The only mechanisms, that current arbitrators are using to combat with the issue, are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. Have you thought/devised of any new but more optimal way to solve this issue?
Thanks, in advance, for your answers. ∯WBGconverse 09:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [4]. 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?
In User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates, she says "Know what you'll do if you don't win a seat. This is an important test. Will you continue participating in the building of the encyclopedia? In what areas do you plan on working? Some people have considerable difficulty resuming normal editing life after an unsuccessful run." What will you do if you're not elected?