Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Casliber/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) 03:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've seen civility problems handled well, and things like copyvio, at various noticeboards. More complex content matters notsomuch. However it is prudent not to generalise. Can you highlight links to the subsequent developments you mention above? Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
 * This example, which is being referred to below. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks - that makes for some light bed-time reading....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks - that makes for some light bed-time reading....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Gerda

 * Good question ;) - Which remedy would you have supported then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In case you want to study meta, the link is in the gadfium questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If this case is based solely on public evidence, I would have supported 1a and 2e, and (probably) 3. I think though in all honesty I would have had to recuse based on Fram filing a case against me in 2014. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, satisfied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If this case is based solely on public evidence, I would have supported 1a and 2e, and (probably) 3. I think though in all honesty I would have had to recuse based on Fram filing a case against me in 2014. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, satisfied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Carrite

 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Carrite (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Cassianto
Thanks Cas. Let me be more specific: The disruption is caused by individuals starting RfC after RfC after RfC until they get the answer they want. The byproduct of this repeated disruption is incivility through sheer frustration - we are, after all, only human. Apparantly, the last committee dealt with the "incivility", but we still have the cause, the repeated starting up of infobox discussions and RfCs, as seen on Stanley Kubrick. In this scenario, is it better to deal with the cause or the symptom?  Cassianto Talk  17:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, so let's take this case as an example - infoboxes are uncontroversial and useful on many articles, particularly those I work on (various animals/plants/fungi/stars/planets/constellations) whereas they are clearly useless on many others (spernatural creatures for instance), and still further, used in many but not all biography articles. Of course there is no information at Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes. At some point, someone needs to stake this dispute through the heart and develop a consensus of which articles they are on and which they are not. Don't forget, I (with other wiki bird watchers) was part of a prolonged argument over capitalisation of bird names which culminated in 2014 - the birds wikiproject was overruled by general consensus and alot of bird editors were angry and upset. Although I was unhappy with the result, I could see that the issue had been simmering from some years beforehand - folks just accept it now. As the 'pedia has grown, there are a few examples of these inconsistencies that have been allowed to develop (referencing styles, BC/AD vs BCE/CE etc., notability guidelines) - some have caused great angst, some not. There aren't that many but sorting out the rules and aligning would at least remove some of the issues folks argue over. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from WereSpielChequers

 * Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from WBG


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

Question from Jehochman


I'm really not thinking of anything in particular. Many years ago a friend said that Wikipedia was unfair because articles could be created about people, and the person can't take action to stop those with an axe to grind from using a Wikipedia page as an attack platform. One thought is that subjects should be allowed to post a tag disputing the neutrality of an article about them, maybe with a link to the talk page where they can post a response to content in the article.

As for dispute resolution, I think it's a parallel issue. If Editor A is going to talk about Editor B some place Editor B can't respond, that's would be wrong in most circumstances, no? Jehochman Talk 03:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It boils down to core wikipedia policies of verifiability and undue weight. Editor B is welcome to post on the talk page and many editors are highly sensitive to BLP issues. Hence in all likelihood, issues will be examined and if it is felt that the article is unduly negative or the material is suspect, there is a good chance the article will be balanced. If Editor B's complaints don't stack up against verifiability and balance then that is unfortunate. We also do have BLP1E which might be of use in this situation. Generalising about this material is tricky. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)