Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Kelapstick/Questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

2. Other than having the adequate technical skills and knowledge required, and having the level of experience consistent with being granted the role(s), what other specific areas, aspects, skills, and/or traits would you look for and personally want to see in a candidate who is applying to be appointed as a CheckUser or Oversighter? What specific areas (outside of knowledge and skill, experience) in an otherwise-good candidate would cause you to halt, make a complete about-face, and oppose their candidacy for Checkuser or Oversighter if you were to see or find it?

   In short, is the user in question generally trustworthy, and are they an ass-hat. There are other things to consider, like a need for additional Functionaries. For exmple, if it is decided that only three additional Oversighters are requried and there are ten applicants, it doesn't make sense to appoint ten, because access to the CUOS tools should be on an as-needed basis, not an as-desired basis.

2. Would you say you were elitist?

   I have no idea what you mean by that.

4. What is your view on the German war effort case that was taking place during the summer, with a focus on the decision. Please give me a complete analysis of the case, and describe what was unusual about that particular case.

   I am going to start off by saying, I will not be providing a complete analysis of the case. This is not a high school examination, it's an offer to serve in a volunteer position. Secondly, thus far you have asked five questions of me, two of which are requesting long detailed analysis. This is effectively monopolizing the process with questions that serve no real purpose (i.e. what value does having me write an essay on the German War Effort case serve to this process?) If you have a specific question about the decisions that were made on that case, please ask, but it's rather inappropriate to ask for a complete analysis pointing out unusual aspects of it. What does unusual mean anyway? With regards to an ArbCom case, there is noting "usual" about them, in my opinion.

6. Select two arbitration cases that went to full conclusion, and explain exactly what aspects of that case you agree on, and what aspect you don't agree on. What would you change in each. I am looking for a detailed answer.

   Feel free to look at the final decision of any case that I took part in between 2016 and 2017, you'll be able to see the aspects that I agreed with and disagreed with.

8. What is your view on discretionary sanctions? Is there any other process of engagement that could be substituted and provide better results?

   I don't care much for discretionary sanctions, but it's a compromise between getting rid of someone outright and directing them away from problematic areas. I don't know if there is a better process, two-way communication is always better, but not everyone is open to that.

10. You stated in 2017 Doubtful I will be running again, although I am willing to host the Lobster Bake/Chili Cook-off again next year. What changed your mind? Is it possibly a half hearted run?

    In December 2017 I was moving from Nova Scotia to Calgary, so I had no intention of running in 2017. As late as this week (or maybe last) I had said I had no intention of running. I changed my mind this morning. I wouldn't say it's a half hearted run, but I am not overly concerned if I get elected or not. I am offering to serve in a volunteer position which I have held in the past. If the community wants to take me up on that offer, great, if there are candidates who decide to run with better qualifications than me, even better.

2. Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here?

   Having served two years on the committee with OR, I can honestly say that she is one of the most thoughtful Wikipedians I have ever had the pleasure of working with. While the two of us have disagreed on many subjects, we do take a similar stance on civility, and in this instance, I agree with her. That isn't to say I wouldn't have accepted the case (I don't recall it, I think I was inactive for the later part of 2017 and I haven't read the actual request, just her decline), but the second and third paragraphs I can certainly support.

2. Hi Kelapstick. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this series of events, in which a former administrator created an undisclosed alternate account to evade a ban on editing political BLPs. It is my understanding (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) that ArbCom was made aware of this in 2017, when you were on the committee. If so, it seems the committee's options would be to (A) rescind the ban and let the editor continue making these edits, (B) keep the ban in place and block the accounts for sockpuppetry, or (C) keep the ban in place but allow the editor to violate it "on the downlow." It seems option (C) was picked. I'd be curious to know if you supported that decision at the time, and if, in retrospect, you think it was the right decision. Thanks.

   Hi 28bytes, there is a little more to it than simply ArbCom was made aware of this in 2017, much of which is not fit for print on this page. I will say this however, personally my belief is the Arbitration Committee cannot be expected to conduct a behavioural investigation every time someone approaches them with an accusation of sockpuppetry as part of an unblock request. My position on the matter was since the accusation had nothing to do with the request at hand, and running a checkuser would provide no useful information, there was not much the committee as a whole could do. If an individual arbitrator wanted to tackle the sockpuppetry accusation on their own, they were free to do so. (My exact wording was "Investigation into the sage/cirt connection can be done on the side. If anyone has any interest in that.", since you're looking to my position specifically). So I guess the answer is (D) No reliable evidence was provided, so we did nothing. Was that the right decision, probably not. In a perfect world, one of us would have taken the initiative to generate an SPI. But back to my previous point, ArbCom (and its individual members) cannot be expected to look into every accusation made by a blocked editor.

2. When you were on the Committee, what were your primary contributions? What would you do differently, if elected again? --Rschen7754 06:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Initially I focused on updating processes such as removing the BASC, and clearing the backlog of BASC cases that needed to be heard. Previously I wasn't particularly active on ARCA issues, so I intend to be more involved in that, and clearing out requests that come in via email (significantly more so than I was previously). Email responses are a big job, which often falls on too few people, and it should not.

2. So, whatever happened happened to the supposed "Lobster Bake/Chili Cook-off"? Do you not feel ashamed now that you were reminded of this broken promise? And were you wearing your Alabama t-shirt when you broke that promise? Drmies (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Twice at least I offered to host a lobster bake, but nobody showed up. That was when I lived in Nova Scotia, and had access to discount shellfish however. Now it's all Alberta Beef.

2. What is your stance on improving the transparency of ArbCom, and the idea of maintaining decorum and respect in mailing list discussions?

   I think that transparency within ArbCom is important, and I think, when I was on the committee we tried to be transparent, although I am sure other people would disagree. Unfortunately often when people most want transparency (or at least to know more information), it coincides with instances where providing that information is not appropriate for privacy reasons. So far as decorum and respect in mailing list discussions, I am not sure what you mean. I don't recall any issues with that when I was on the committee, I find it hard to believe that it has devolved significantly within twelve months.

4. When, how and to what extent do you think any editor should be informed if they are being actively discussed by ArbCom in a matter that would immediately affect their future in this community?

   It certainly depends on what the issue is, who brought it up, and who the editor is. Broadly speaking, if ArbCom decides to look into issues with an editor, they should always let the editor have a chance to address the concern directly before any action is taken. Whether that happens prior to any investigation depends on the circumstance. For example Sockpuppetry is often investigated without the user in question knowing, there is no reason that should be any different if it is being discussed by the Arbitration Committee.

2. Given the lack of attempts at dispute resolution that preceded it, what are your thoughts on the decision of ArbCom to take on the German War Effort case this last year?

   In this case you can either take the case (as was done), or flip it back to the community in order to go through the motions of prior dispute resolution, which is effectively just going through the motions until it comes back to the Arbitration Committee in 6-12 months anyway. So the question to be asked is "Is it worth it to wait until it comes back, or should we just deal with it now?" I don't care for process for the sake of process, so if the expectation is that something declined would be accepted after a few half-hearted attempts at dispute resolution, you might as well deal with it right then and there.

2. Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?

   No.

4. If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits?

   Not-disinterested is not the same as not impartial. Naturally everything must be assessed on a case by case basis, however broadly speaking if an arbitrator has an active history with a user, they should recuse on matters relating to that user (which appears to be what you’re getting at).

6. Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually far from home for an extended period, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow fully reasoned responses to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"?

   It can be appropriate, however in nearly all cases someone should be given an ample opportunity to respond to allegations of impropriety. Accommodations should be given when a user is away, after all we are all volunteers here. Even when we are on the receiving end of an ArbCom case. Regarding your last question, yes.

2. What was the most rewarding aspect of your previous time spent on ArbCom? Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I wouldn't say that I found it very rewarding, I mean think about it. It's a thankless job, where you spend most of the time completing tasks which very few people ever see or know about, and when people do know about your actions, you end up being called corrupt, incompetent, and/or ineffective (sometimes all three!). Really nobody in their right mind would run for ArbCom (and look at Doug, hes running for a third term!) I suppose there is a sense of accomplishment when something gets done, and the belief that you are doing the right thing, and helping out. Having said that, without exception, I did enjoy working with everyone on the committee(s) while I was a member. So there is that.

2. What was the most rewarding aspect of your previous time spent as founder of the Bacon Cabal 9 years ago yesterday?

   I would say that 2009 was probably the most fun I had on Wikipedia. It was great, writing articles about absurd concepts like chocolate covered bacon, and getting it featured in the DYK section on the main page. I really enjoyed that, of course the DYK criteria and process was a lot more lax back then, so it was significantly easier. But I had a lot of fun with it.

4. Do you think Cirt's co-founding of the Bacon Project in 2010, and their subsequent joining of the Bacon Cabal immediately before abandoning their account may have influenced your decision not to pursue inquiry into the Sagecandor/Cirt SPI request mailed to you in November 2017 (Cf. Question-Set #4 above)?

   Short answer, no. Longer answer, I don't recall having any significant conversations, or doing much collaboration with Cirt back then, or ever for that matter. That's not to say we never worked on the same article, or never spoke, I just don't think we have every had any discussions of any significance. During those days I tended to collaborate with Drmies, ChildofMidnight, and Bongomatic mostly. I do remember one article he created off hand (Don't Forget the Bacon!), but really that's about it. I know who Cirt is, in as much as I know the name, but that is about the extent of my history with them (this shows as much). Did the fact that someone I seldom interacted with, created a mostly dormant WikiProject, of which I am a member, affect my decision as an arbitrator, seven years later? No, not at all.

6. Do you think all candidates should indicate which cabal they represent?

   It can't hurt. For full disclosure, I am a member of the Bacon Cabal, and was at one time a frequent contributor to the Canadian Wikipedian's Notice Board.

2. Arb policy makes a requirement for transparency and Arb cases make an explicit statement of intent to reach a "fair" decision.
   1. What are, in your opinion, the "principles and spirit" (per WP:5P5) that underpin the policy and statement?
   2. The policy in particular, requires "detailed rationales for decisions related to cases". Please comment on this duty as it might apply to you (say, as a drafting arbitrator) and the committee as a whole, in respect to how this duty is discharged (noting the underlying principles), particularly where the evidence presented might be in conflict.
   3. Do you consider that this duty has been complied with and what might you do to improve compliance?

Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. There are currently ongoing ARCA could you state your opinion about the issue [1].