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

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question |Q=Your question |A=}}

When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?
I appreciate any new idea that may help us deal with paid editing, but I can't see how that would be an effective measure.
To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?
To a lesser extent than they highly problematic and authoritarian notice that was sent to admins earlier this year. It should be encouraged for admin, but not required. Unfortunately it is my understanding that the foundation simply lacks the resources to scale it out for everybody at this time.

I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. If you had been an arb then, what might you have replied, and which of the remedies under 2 would you have supported?
Well, I agree that the desysop was out of process, and, as I'm sure many other did, I did consider what my position would've been. The rights should've been restored. If there was a case for a desysop and any sanction short of an indefinite office ban, it should've been made transparently on-wiki. Period.

Thank you, satisfied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the decision to accept Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort? In particular, considering the lack of prior dispute resolution attempts or attempt to use ANI to deal with the behavioural issues. Why or why not?
I didn't follow the case at the time, but at a glance it looks like quite a bit of evidence was presented, and the committee was able to come to several coherent findings based on that, which suggests a serious problem. I do see three links to previous attempts at resolution, and it is within the committee's discretion to consider discussions outside of formal noticeboards. That's about all I can say without fully reviewing the entire case.

Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?
Hmm. Most of my recent unblock-related activity has been on UTRS, but frankly most of it isn't that interesting. I suppose there was this, my response to a user who has been around for thirteen years and blocked like 20 times over two accounts but expected me to believe they did not understand what the words "email" and "arbcom" meant.

What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
Probably the fact that most people elected have little to no real experience or training in resolving complex disputes. This is at least partially fixable, if we could get the foundation, or even some outside group, to pay for real dispute resolution training. Another issue is a lack of transparency in some cases. I wouldn't use the "big one" from this year as an example as that was an extraordinary circumstance, but it is a real issue sometimes. When I was previously on the committee I endeavored to be as accessible and transparent as possible, but sometimes the committee really does have no choice. We can't share the details of someone being outed, for example, because we'd be exacerbating the problem rather than resolving it, but I do feel that the committee as a whole sometimes is less open than it should be.

Are there any circumstances where you would think it acceptable to give an editor a fixed term block without telling them why or what you expect them to desist from when they return? (Yes, this is a Fram related question).
No. A fixed-term block is a way of saying "you screwed up, and you need to stop, but we aren't kicking you out forever just yet." If we don't tell them why, how are they supposed to modify their behavior to be within expected norms once the block expires? It's just setting them up to be indef blocked, which is simply unfair. The office screwed up in their response to that situation, that's been my position, and I think they've actually got that message. I would add that I do understand the reasons why office blocks are not generally explained, it's mostly for legal "CYA" reasons, and that's fine, but it's exactly why they are not a good tool for timed blocks.

Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?
Ought the persons named in a case be given sufficient time to answer charges made by others, rather than have each be given the same time limits?
When an arbitrator proffers specific evidence on their own, ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence" as though it were timely presented, with the same time allowed for such a response?