Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Cabayi/Questions

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

Per WP:ACERFC2020, there is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

Questions from Mikehawk10


Thank you for your time. I look forward to your responses. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Updated with follow-up. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Questions from Kudpung

 * Thank you for your answers, . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answers, . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answers, . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Given your reluctant candidacy, your limited service and the not insignificant opposition at your RfA, how open are you to the idea that ArbCom perhaps might be better off having fewer members returned this year, rather than electing candidates who may not yet be able to command the required level of trust and respect through no fault of their own? In other words, do you believe the Committee is better off being a certain size regardless of its makeup, or do you have any reason why you specifically should be elected in spite of your limited experience? Horizon of Happy (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Questions from Horizon of Happy
 * I refute your assumed equivalence between time served and experience. If I stopped editing today, and did the bare minimum to avoid an inactivity desysop, I would progress up the Administrative service awards until March 2026. I would have improved not one iota as an editor or as an admin but would, by your criteria have 6 years experience rather than a just under two.
 * None of the serving arbitrators (so far as I have seen) have indicated that the last year at Arbcom has been such a cushy number that they feel fewer members are required. Cabayi (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Questions from A7V2


Thankyou for your answers! A7V2 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from Epiphyllumlover

 * I didn't think of the possibility that some former employees might try to take advantage of their ex-bosses for ulterior motives besides money. Verification for bounty eligibility would need to be part of the system. Many freelancing sites save past conversations, so it shouldn't be too hard for employees to verify who their employer(s) are and the extent of their past employment.
 * I fleshed out some of the details on the "exclusive training" midway through User_talk:Wugapodes. A legitimate "marketplace" (or challenge/reward page) already exists on enwiki, and has for years, although probably less than 1% of editors know about it. Wiki-syntax tutoring between first-language English speakers and people for whom English is a second language is a niche sort of thing that is best separated from wiki infrastructure intended for just anyone. I agree with you in that a system to match tutors with candidates could be opened in a broader way, especially if the supply of tutors is willing to meet the demand.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I fleshed out some of the details on the "exclusive training" midway through User_talk:Wugapodes. A legitimate "marketplace" (or challenge/reward page) already exists on enwiki, and has for years, although probably less than 1% of editors know about it. Wiki-syntax tutoring between first-language English speakers and people for whom English is a second language is a niche sort of thing that is best separated from wiki infrastructure intended for just anyone. I agree with you in that a system to match tutors with candidates could be opened in a broader way, especially if the supply of tutors is willing to meet the demand.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , there are 324 other language Wikipedia projects. Are you proposing that the English community undermine their ability to develop their own materials? Or that the ability to communicate in English should no longer apply on the English Wikipedia? Either way, it's beyond the remit of Arbcom. Cabayi (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything changing with the use of English on enwiki. It is possible for people who have limited English skills to communicate in English via synchronous communication. So when there is a misunderstanding, the tutor can reword it in another way, or give examples until everything is understood. This is why an "exclusive" or separate tutoring type program would be especially beneficial.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from Atsme
Cabayi, thank you for volunteering for this thankless job and for your convincing replies. I am somewhat relieved by your response to Q1, and understand your reply to Q2 but I just want to add this little tidbit, and a quote, "Minor quibbles about grammar is one thing, but these techniques are frequently used by political ideologues, ethnic nationalists, and conspiracy theorists. Professor Bryce Peake called this the “hegemony of the asshole consensus.” There's also a good chance that pile-ons can cause an unexpected result as discovered in the Asch-conformity-experiments, or some off-wiki suggestions. I'm of the mind that decorum is of the utmost importance when an editor is "on trial", and that involved editors should have their say, but the feedback from uninvolved editors should carry the most weight. Just sayin'...  Atsme 💬 📧 17:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)