Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Casliber/Questions

Individual questions
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

Question from Smallbones


Followup

Questions from Gerda Arendt
Thank you for stepping forward!
 * What about a project-wide offer of a template model by project opera? Compare Il ritorno d'Ulisse in Patria, for example.
 * Adding: at least one candidate looked at the 2013 discussion, but 2015 is the one I mean, sorry if that was not clear.
 * Where is the 2013 discussion? The opera wikiproject has alot of archives....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being clear again, I meant 2013 on that same article talk. In case of interest, infobox opera was discussed by the project in May 2013, and then made available, with related reading (good for several nights) before and after. The feature is (more or less) accepted now, the last dispute on project level was archived, and featured articles typically have one, see above.
 * Well, it looks very nice and all...but. If an editor refuses to use one there needs to be some discussion to get consensus. Which I don't see here. So these things need to be settled by well-constructed broad RfCs. Like what happened with the bird capitalisation debate....sigh.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The call for an RfC is old and unanswered. Who wants to deal with that? Not I, and possibly not you. Can an editor refuse? Good question. Could I have refused to have A Boy was Born moved (to a title which is not the composer's but compliant with our holy MOS)?
 * You have to have rules for these cases - we're making an encyclopedia and stuff has to look the same. Imagine if I formatted all pages I worked on in Comic Sans.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Project : "... learn to be comfortable with occasional variations when they serve the interests of the article and the reader, and above all treat each other with courtesy and good humour" ;)
 * Project : "... learn to be comfortable with occasional variations when they serve the interests of the article and the reader, and above all treat each other with courtesy and good humour" ;)


 * Wonderful answer to the situation. I don't think being "involved" forces you to do something when you lean to doing nothing ;) - However, that was not the question. Any suggestions for a different style of AE? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wonderful answer to the situation. I don't think being "involved" forces you to do something when you lean to doing nothing ;) - However, that was not the question. Any suggestions for a different style of AE? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from MLauba
I guess this is becoming my question list for former arbs asking to return to the role :) MLauba (Talk) 10:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC) MLauba (Talk) 10:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Guerillero
Thank you for running for another term of the hardest and most thankless job on the project. Many of these questions are sourced from actual cases, discussions, and problems over the past year. Enjoy!

Insider Baseball


===Question from Pldx1===
 * 1) No more useful. Pldx1 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Antony–22

 * Increased participation from professionals refers to things like the Education Program, Wikipedians-in-Residence and preexisting staff at GLAM institutions, and other partnerships mainly set up through the chapters. Civility enforcement is more controversial than it should be, and I'm guessing that resistance to it might be in part because of fear that if workplace standards of decorum are enforced, existing editors will be driven out.  I'm asking if you think this fear is valid, and how we can keep editors when Wikipedia is a countercultural hobby for some and a workplace for others. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Those areas are not usually troubled by spats. On what basis do you say it's more controversial? That's your assumption. What is a workplace standard of decorum? However, let's assume you mean stricter civility, and yes I have some concerns that some editors will leave but ultimately that is their own business. Primarily we're building an encyclopedia and if an editor has contributed a large amount of article work and is collaborative and enthusiastic 97% of the time and blows a gasket 3% of the time then it is hard to think of the person as a net negative (except that people who spend their time on arb-related pages often don't see the good bits). I don't hold that many see it as countercultural and certainly not many would see it as a workplace, so not sure how that is relevant. i don't think views are as dichotomous in general, just that some recent spats over the past year have led to the recurrence of the depressiingly common, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" meme popping up again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)q
 * Increased participation from professionals refers to things like the Education Program, Wikipedians-in-Residence and preexisting staff at GLAM institutions, and other partnerships mainly set up through the chapters. Civility enforcement is more controversial than it should be, and I'm guessing that resistance to it might be in part because of fear that if workplace standards of decorum are enforced, existing editors will be driven out.  I'm asking if you think this fear is valid, and how we can keep editors when Wikipedia is a countercultural hobby for some and a workplace for others. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Those areas are not usually troubled by spats. On what basis do you say it's more controversial? That's your assumption. What is a workplace standard of decorum? However, let's assume you mean stricter civility, and yes I have some concerns that some editors will leave but ultimately that is their own business. Primarily we're building an encyclopedia and if an editor has contributed a large amount of article work and is collaborative and enthusiastic 97% of the time and blows a gasket 3% of the time then it is hard to think of the person as a net negative (except that people who spend their time on arb-related pages often don't see the good bits). I don't hold that many see it as countercultural and certainly not many would see it as a workplace, so not sure how that is relevant. i don't think views are as dichotomous in general, just that some recent spats over the past year have led to the recurrence of the depressiingly common, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" meme popping up again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)q
 * Increased participation from professionals refers to things like the Education Program, Wikipedians-in-Residence and preexisting staff at GLAM institutions, and other partnerships mainly set up through the chapters. Civility enforcement is more controversial than it should be, and I'm guessing that resistance to it might be in part because of fear that if workplace standards of decorum are enforced, existing editors will be driven out.  I'm asking if you think this fear is valid, and how we can keep editors when Wikipedia is a countercultural hobby for some and a workplace for others. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Those areas are not usually troubled by spats. On what basis do you say it's more controversial? That's your assumption. What is a workplace standard of decorum? However, let's assume you mean stricter civility, and yes I have some concerns that some editors will leave but ultimately that is their own business. Primarily we're building an encyclopedia and if an editor has contributed a large amount of article work and is collaborative and enthusiastic 97% of the time and blows a gasket 3% of the time then it is hard to think of the person as a net negative (except that people who spend their time on arb-related pages often don't see the good bits). I don't hold that many see it as countercultural and certainly not many would see it as a workplace, so not sure how that is relevant. i don't think views are as dichotomous in general, just that some recent spats over the past year have led to the recurrence of the depressiingly common, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" meme popping up again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)q
 * Those areas are not usually troubled by spats. On what basis do you say it's more controversial? That's your assumption. What is a workplace standard of decorum? However, let's assume you mean stricter civility, and yes I have some concerns that some editors will leave but ultimately that is their own business. Primarily we're building an encyclopedia and if an editor has contributed a large amount of article work and is collaborative and enthusiastic 97% of the time and blows a gasket 3% of the time then it is hard to think of the person as a net negative (except that people who spend their time on arb-related pages often don't see the good bits). I don't hold that many see it as countercultural and certainly not many would see it as a workplace, so not sure how that is relevant. i don't think views are as dichotomous in general, just that some recent spats over the past year have led to the recurrence of the depressiingly common, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" meme popping up again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)q

Questions from GrammarFascist



 * Thanks for responding, . — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 01:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, . — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 01:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Question from Brustopher
Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on WP:OUTING. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.

Questions from Ryk72
Thank you for stepping forward; your commitment to serving the community is greatly appreciated.

Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.

Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)