Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Xeno/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) 03:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not seeing a follow up question. On the subject of content vs conduct, I would refer to Kelly Martin’s exceptional WO essay-post of 14 November 2019 (which has been republished on this project) for a potential remedy proposal to your concern.
 * Could you link to this? I'm not seeing this on this page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:PermanentLink/927406237
 * Thanks. The point I take from this is that ArbCom should be considered our disciplinary committee, which frankly, I agree with. Discipline equals conduct in my view, and ArbCom has strayed well outside that remit in the last couple of years, with ARBGWE and the Poland case at the very least. Personally, having an extensive experience in a disputed area (WWII in Yugoslavia) I believe there are plenty of options available to deal with content disputes, including RSN and RfCs. So, based on your promotion of this essay, can I take it that you believe that ArbCom should get more involved in content disputes? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ll have to read it again, but my understanding is that the essay suggests an editorial board that could hear content disputes, leaving the committee to focus on conduct concerns. Yes, there are noticeboard and RFCs but none of these have a formal structure and they lack a binding finality, which can lead to forum shopping and RfC fatigue.
 * I’ll have to read it again, but my understanding is that the essay suggests an editorial board that could hear content disputes, leaving the committee to focus on conduct concerns. Yes, there are noticeboard and RFCs but none of these have a formal structure and they lack a binding finality, which can lead to forum shopping and RfC fatigue.

Question from Gerda

 * Thank you satisfied, another example of how easy this could be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you satisfied, another example of how easy this could be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Cassianto

 * No, the cause is not editorial, but disruptive individuals starting RfC after RfC after RfC in order to get the answer they want. The byproduct of this repeated disruption is incivility through sheer frustration. But don't worry, the last committee "fixed" the byproduct, but guess what, the problem continued. I would ask that you have an understanding of this important issue as it will come up again, I'm sure.  Cassianto Talk  17:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I will work on acquiring a greater understanding should I be elected. My response was off the cuff and (as you have highlighted) unresearched. I believe portal space discussions are undergoing similar tumult.
 * Thanks, Xeno, much obliged for taking the time to respond to me.  Cassianto Talk  21:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Xeno, much obliged for taking the time to respond to me.  Cassianto Talk  21:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from WereSpielChequers

 * Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Nosebagbear

 * Followup 1: Thanks for a good answer to a somewhat willfully broad question. To consider one specific aspect, you stated the accused still has a right to know the charge - was that a literal "know the charge" or do you think knowing the charge also necessitates knowing all the evidence (e.g. the charge might be harassment, whereas the evidence would be various diffs and instances of that)? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's tough to speak hypothetically about this. For example, it wouldn't really be appropriate to take a complaint about X from Y and then turn around and find some diffs where X had gone after Z in a similar way, and say: "hey, look, don't do this stuff like you did to Z! to shield Y. So I am not unsympathetic to the position in which the committee was placed, and T&S clearly found themselves in a similar catch-22 if the complainant was not willing to grant permission to disclose the specific diffs (which were likely to identify the complainant). Without being able to demonstrate the behaviours that are being felt by the complainant as harassment to the accused, you are denying the accused party all reasonable form of response.
 * I think it's tough to speak hypothetically about this. For example, it wouldn't really be appropriate to take a complaint about X from Y and then turn around and find some diffs where X had gone after Z in a similar way, and say: "hey, look, don't do this stuff like you did to Z! to shield Y. So I am not unsympathetic to the position in which the committee was placed, and T&S clearly found themselves in a similar catch-22 if the complainant was not willing to grant permission to disclose the specific diffs (which were likely to identify the complainant). Without being able to demonstrate the behaviours that are being felt by the complainant as harassment to the accused, you are denying the accused party all reasonable form of response.

Question from Banedon

 * It's up to you if you want to revisit your response - I'll be checking this right up till I submit my votes. Thanks for answer! One clarification: what do you mean by potential recusals? Are you saying you would have recused if you were currently an arbitrator? Banedon (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have past collaborative interactions with User:BrownHairedGirl (and probably User:Northamerica1000) that I would have to consider. I don’t think it would necessarily warrant recusal but I haven’t looked in depth (could on request). I’ve not done much with portal space and discussions, if anything. –xenotalk  02:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Still awaiting statements. I looked into interactions and they’ve been rather limited so nothing that would suggest recusal is necessary. –xenotalk 02:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed while reviewing the statements of this case that I closed RfA/NA1K 2 as successful 5 years ago: it was a borderline case, under somewhat unique circumstances. The fact that I didn't really remember indicates to me there is no bias on my part towards that party, but I'm always willing to hear recusal suggestions/requests. –xenotalk 13:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Still awaiting statements. One of the main parties put up a vacation notice (Special:Diff/927081706); the other continues to participate in portal space discussions (in Special:Diff/927215917, explaining their usage of the word “junk” in reference to a portal): they should be gently prompted to take a moment to compose a response to the case request before continuing activities in this sphere. –xenotalk 02:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Gently prompted in the form of a courtesy note referencing here (Special:Diff/927223681), a reasonable explanation for the delay was provided. Still awaiting statements, which may not arrive until early December given the vacation note from the other named party. –xenotalk 01:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Statements have not yet been submitted by the main parties, nevertheless I would now vote to Accept the case so that the work can continue while the two main parties compose their thoughts. The fact is that the case was uploaded to AC rather explicitly in an ANI closure: the community is unable to handle it without the committee’s guidance and structure. –xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 10:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The case was accepted: Special:Diff/928097122. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 20:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Gently prompted in the form of a courtesy note referencing here (Special:Diff/927223681), a reasonable explanation for the delay was provided. Still awaiting statements, which may not arrive until early December given the vacation note from the other named party. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 01:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Statements have not yet been submitted by the main parties, nevertheless I would now vote to Accept the case so that the work can continue while the two main parties compose their thoughts. The fact is that the case was uploaded to AC rather explicitly in an ANI closure: the community is unable to handle it without the committee’s guidance and structure. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 10:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The case was accepted: Special:Diff/928097122. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 20:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Volunteer Marek

 * Yes the "spokesperson" thing was a failure of creativity on my part (I was tired), but it got the point across.  Volunteer Marek   05:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes the "spokesperson" thing was a failure of creativity on my part (I was tired), but it got the point across.  Volunteer Marek   05:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from WBG
Thanks, in advance, for your answers. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 08:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from FeralOink



 * This was what I was trying to ascertain: "I've never been contacted by T&S with respect to my conduct". Thank you! I appreciate the additional details, and broader context you provided.--FeralOink (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)