Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Barkeep49/Questions

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

Question from Peacemaker67

 * 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) 03:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your analysis that it might not have been worth the amount of time invested could well be right. This is a big worry of mine - we don't have enough editor hours to do all we need doing on Wikipedia. It's why I mentioned elsewhere on this page I would like ArbCom to explore responding with motions rather than cases in some instances. So I want to acknowledge that up front - your analysis of the cost/benefits stands a good chance of being correct. That said, I don't agree that LR gets handled at ANI easily. Maybe handled at ANI, but not easily. And maybe not even at all. Again, ArbCom had a full set of facts that ANI wouldn't and so the case against LR would have just been about the account being created to harass another editor. I don't think that's a slam dunk in the way that an 11-0 finding was (and if I recall correctly there weren't any dissents even before LR came increasingly off the rails as it was clear the motion would pass). Does that justify an ArbCom case especially because it might have happened at ANI? No it doesn't. But what I find troubling, is that some number of members of the MilHist project would not have said that the person at the heart of the case was a good faith editor. And further, to use your language, that the mechanisms of the project had been weaponized against that editor. And I agree with you ArbCom shouldn't be ruling on content. I agree 100%. But since this isn't ArbCom, and I'm not an arbitrator (yet) let me comment on content and say that I think that as an encyclopedia we were not accurately reflecting high quality sourcing in some of our German War effort articles and that the mechanisms of the project were hindering efforts to achieve those ends collaboratively. Does all that justify an ArbCom case? Maybe not. Were there enough facts in evidence to support having taken the case in the first place? That's a bit dicey as I wrote before. But I also think, based on the evidence in play and based on the scope of what ArbCom could get involved in, as I remember it at the time, and in re-reading it now, that the findings of facts and proposed remedies were fair and were a legitimate effort at creating the conditions for collaborative high-quality content to be produced. And that is with-in their remit. This is the kind of case I am talking about in my candidate statement that leads me to believe that ArbCom is not a necessary evil and that considering what it faces ArbCom does a good job, on the whole. I hope my worry about the time sink of ArbCom is enough to win your vote, but also understand if the sentiment I just expressed is a deal breaker for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your analysis that it might not have been worth the amount of time invested could well be right. This is a big worry of mine - we don't have enough editor hours to do all we need doing on Wikipedia. It's why I mentioned elsewhere on this page I would like ArbCom to explore responding with motions rather than cases in some instances. So I want to acknowledge that up front - your analysis of the cost/benefits stands a good chance of being correct. That said, I don't agree that LR gets handled at ANI easily. Maybe handled at ANI, but not easily. And maybe not even at all. Again, ArbCom had a full set of facts that ANI wouldn't and so the case against LR would have just been about the account being created to harass another editor. I don't think that's a slam dunk in the way that an 11-0 finding was (and if I recall correctly there weren't any dissents even before LR came increasingly off the rails as it was clear the motion would pass). Does that justify an ArbCom case especially because it might have happened at ANI? No it doesn't. But what I find troubling, is that some number of members of the MilHist project would not have said that the person at the heart of the case was a good faith editor. And further, to use your language, that the mechanisms of the project had been weaponized against that editor. And I agree with you ArbCom shouldn't be ruling on content. I agree 100%. But since this isn't ArbCom, and I'm not an arbitrator (yet) let me comment on content and say that I think that as an encyclopedia we were not accurately reflecting high quality sourcing in some of our German War effort articles and that the mechanisms of the project were hindering efforts to achieve those ends collaboratively. Does all that justify an ArbCom case? Maybe not. Were there enough facts in evidence to support having taken the case in the first place? That's a bit dicey as I wrote before. But I also think, based on the evidence in play and based on the scope of what ArbCom could get involved in, as I remember it at the time, and in re-reading it now, that the findings of facts and proposed remedies were fair and were a legitimate effort at creating the conditions for collaborative high-quality content to be produced. And that is with-in their remit. This is the kind of case I am talking about in my candidate statement that leads me to believe that ArbCom is not a necessary evil and that considering what it faces ArbCom does a good job, on the whole. I hope my worry about the time sink of ArbCom is enough to win your vote, but also understand if the sentiment I just expressed is a deal breaker for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Carrite

 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Banedon



 * I'm afraid this doesn't give me enough context. I'd like to see something more precise, e.g. in the Rama case, given the proposed remedy "For misuse of administrative tools and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT, Rama is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship." - if you were an arbitrator then, how would you vote? If you would've supported, why? If you would've opposed, why? The arbitrators who voted on it gave their reasons ; I'd like to see yours. I understand that getting familiar with the facts of the case is time-consuming, so 1) feel free to take your time, 2) feel free to pick a different example/case if you like, and 3) feel free to say something to the tune of "I don't have the time to examine the full case, but based on the findings of fact ...". Banedon (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this doesn't give me enough context. I'd like to see something more precise, e.g. in the Rama case, given the proposed remedy "For misuse of administrative tools and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT, Rama is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship." - if you were an arbitrator then, how would you vote? If you would've supported, why? If you would've opposed, why? The arbitrators who voted on it gave their reasons ; I'd like to see yours. I understand that getting familiar with the facts of the case is time-consuming, so 1) feel free to take your time, 2) feel free to pick a different example/case if you like, and 3) feel free to say something to the tune of "I don't have the time to examine the full case, but based on the findings of fact ...". Banedon (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Cassianto

 * Sorry, were you answering another question? I think you may've posted in the wrong box.  Cassianto Talk  17:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No I was answering you, but not as clearly as I'd have desired. You asked should the committee deal with the cause rather than just the symptom. To which I said I think this year's committee has tried to do that with the cases they've accepted but didn't always have the capacity to follow that through to the end of the case. I guess I didn't give a straight answer to whether this is good or not - I think it is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No I was answering you, but not as clearly as I'd have desired. You asked should the committee deal with the cause rather than just the symptom. To which I said I think this year's committee has tried to do that with the cases they've accepted but didn't always have the capacity to follow that through to the end of the case. I guess I didn't give a straight answer to whether this is good or not - I think it is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * So on the IB link I provided above, do you think the previous committee dealt with the issue head on? Let me be more specific: The disruption is caused when an individual notices an article without an infobox, in this case Stanley Kubrick. They ask why there isn't one, on the talk page, and are told to check the archives as the current consensus is that the article does not carry an IB. Not satisfied with this, they then become uncivil by throwing around OWN accusations, which only goes some way to putting people's backs up. They then start another RfC in the hope of overturning consensus. When that fails, someone else comes along and starts another RfC, which again fails.  Then someone else comes along and starts another RfC... I'm sure you get the message. The byproduct of this repeated disruption is incivility by those who were quietly minding their own business. That was what the incivility in IB discussions was all about.  The case solved nothing, as since then there has been yet another RfC on Kubrick, literally as recent as month or two ago. I've lost count with how many infobox discussions have taken place on Kubrick. Yet according to the last committee, it was the fault of the people who became frustrated by this disruptive behaviour, and not the disruptors themselves. In this scenario, is it better to deal with the cause or the symptom?   Cassianto Talk  12:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. I would expect that works both ways though - consensus for inclusion of an infobox could turn into consensus to remove it. Revisiting a discussion is part of having a collaborative encyclopedia. However, that's not what happened at Kubrick. I am very familiar with Kubrick's infobox history as I read all the RfCs (a couple of them more than once) before closing the most recent one. As I noted there, people continually looking to restart the discussion about adding an infobox had become disruptive and I support the DS Bish enacted. ArbCom should not be deciding content issues. ArbCom should be creating situations where those who wish to engage in a content discussion can do so and I think Infobox probation is a reasonable attempt to do that, though I will note that it does favor those who wish to include them in an article as they can do so when creating) rather than those who don't (since if one isn't included when created and is added later, someone on probation would be unable to challenge that). That said outside of Kubrick I'm unaware of how, if at all, there has been conflict around infoboxes and if there's evidence that ArbCom has failed to create conditions where editors can make content decisions effectively I think that evidence should be presented at WP:ARCA. I also think that case would have been aided had you chosen to participate (though on a personal level understand why you didn't). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Consensus can change, sure, but should we be testing it every few months? Can you imagine having an article where changes were contested every few months, on either side of the argument? That is simply a recipe for ill-feeling and resentment, and doesn't do anything to build collaborative relationships. Re-running the same discussion every few months will just grind people down and the article would simply be removed from people's watchlists.  The last committee failed to meet the problem head on and it was up to a lone administrator, in this case Bishonen, to solve the problem. It rather begs the question: why have a committee at all?  Anyway, this isn't Infobox3, so I'll leave you to concentrate on other people's questions.  Thanks for your time.   Cassianto Talk  00:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Kudpung

 * Thank you for your answer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from WereSpielChequers

 * Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from WBG


Thanks, in advance, for your answers. &#x222F; WBG converse 08:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Uanfala
Thank you for your time. – Uanfala (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)