Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Casliber

Casliber[edit]

Hi, my name is Cas Liber and I have decided after some thought to run for the arbitration committee. I ran successfully for the committee in the 2008 elections, and my introduction remains pretty much the same. I enjoyed the nine months I spent on the committee until my resignation, and the ensuing discussion, where although the balance was in favour of me staying, enough people whose opinions I valued were unimpressed enough for me to figure on going as the right thing to do. Furthermore I had strong feelings on socking and felt like a hypocrite. Anyway, it was one of those blunders I had wearing "friend-hat" and not "arb-hat" on.

So why am I here? Two reasons. I always felt the adminship process was not truly broken, and we were doing okay (and in fact I'd like to believe that I was one of the folks on the committee in early 2009 who helped the committee be more proactive in reviewing and taking action over admin conduct at that time), but some recent Requests for Adminship in the last month or two I felt the atmosphere had deteriorated to the point that there is a real malaise there. Since 2009, I have often commented at RfA that the committee is a safety valve, however folks have been loth to refer for admin issues. I think it is time maybe we look at broadening the AUSC to cover admin conduct, or some other process, anyway time for action/tweak the makeup of things.

The second issue was the resignation of Rlevse and subsequent discussions, where I did feel a sense of fraying of the threads of community further. I have always felt that arbs do better as active and involved members of the wikipedia community, and I was really worried about some of the us/them comments as folks' tempers frayed, by all sorts of experienced editors. As an active contributor to the Featured Article, Good Article and DYK process, I feel I am a good person to tie everyone together and get everyone moving in the same direction. I reckon we have alot more similarities in common than differences.

I just realised David Fuchs beat me to it, but the encyclopedia thing's important, and I think being elbow-deep in the processes that make or improve content gives an experience and viewpoint it is hard to duplicate.

PS: No other accounts, maybe the odd IP edit.

Arbitration Committee Election 2019 candidate: Casliber

General questions[edit]

Skills/interests: Which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator? Your responses should indicate how your professional/educational background makes you suitable to the tasks.
- (a) reviewing cases, carefully weighing up the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions;
- (b) drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
- (c) voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and motions for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
- (d) considering appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or considering the Subcommittee's recommendations;
- (e) overseeing the allocation and use of checkuser and oversight permissions, including the vetting and community consultation of candidates for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
- (f) running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to CU if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
- (g) carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators are generally also given OS privileges);
- (h) drafting responses to inquiries and concerns forwarded to the Committee by editors;
- (i) interacting with the community on public pages such as arbitration and other talk pages;
- (j) performing internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming arbcom-l mailing list traffic.
A: I have written alot of content and have a wide knowledge base. I can access a wide range of material via uni library and other resources to review editors' use of sources etc. I deal with alot of conflict at work and am good at reading people (e.g. getting an idea of whether a person has assumed responsibility and taken on board, to assess the likelihood of a person getting into further problems down the track, also getting an idea of trustworthiness etc.) Technically I am not experienced with checkuser skills but am glad to work with folks who are. I am good at writing succinct statements, and am running on a platform of interacting with the community, which I do alot.
Stress: How will you be able to cope with the stress of being an arbitrator, potentially including on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass you by the public "outing" of personal information?
A: My identity is public already, and I have a pretty boring life ;). I was okay for nine months last time. Best way I find is finding common ground and not getting my hackles raised. I've been pretty good at that over the past 4 years or so.
Principles: Assume the four principles linked to below are directly relevant to the facts of a new case. Would you support or oppose each should it be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? A one- or two-sentence answer is sufficient for each. Please regard them in isolation rather than in the context of their original cases.
- (a) "Private correspondence"
  A: Yes. Although there might be a need to mention the nature of an email or email WRT a particular case (i.e. acknowledge canvassing or off-wiki threats have occurred where their existence is proven and impacts upon a case's evidence)
- (b) "Responsibility"
  A: Yes. All actions taken should be able to be explained by an editor. The key there is discussion. Wikipedia is a big place and there are always folks to discuss potentially controversial or problematic actions.
- (c) "Perceived legal threats"
  A: Difficult for me to comment on that one, specifics aside, as the person in question I have known for many years. But aside from that - in general ambiguous chilling comments which impact on editing environment are problematic when trying to foster a collaborative editing environment.
- (d) "Outing"
  A: Yes, although interpreting the redacted bit might be tricky in some future cases.
Strict versus lenient: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?
A: "Yes" - I can see myself as both. Ultimately every case should be heard on its own merits, although in practice one is unable to avoid reviewing other cases and comparing decisions, so one has to be aware of the overall course the committee is taking (e.g. desysoppings in 2009) to foster an atmosphere (and hopefully reality) of fairness. Ultimately I try to weigh up what is the best outcome for the development of the encyclopedia and its editing environment (i.e. is this editor capable of editing constructively and collaboratively in a collaborative environment, and are they contributing more good than harm) - trying to calibrate my concerns to that of various discussion boards, I'd have to say I am more worried about issues such as Original Research and (mis)interpretation and misuse of sources than civility, compared with what I have read, but we I think are moving in the right direction recently in terms of awareness. Finally, I can see cases for desysopping without previous sanctions.
ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community". Please give reasons.
A: Yes - I can see some discussion coming up next year about adminship...given people don't consider the safety valve (i.e. referral to the committee for review of conduct) to be a safety valve, so I think it needs to be placed on the table somehow
Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve?
A: Yes - we act as a traffic director at times. e.g. this was one I added, though had been discussed by others I recall.
Success in handling cases: Nominate the cases from 2010 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
A: Stevertigo - I am glad the seriousness of the problem was realised. As far as less successful - the outside impression of the Climate Change case was one of lurching from one extreme to the other, and the delay too was problematic, however that was always going to be a nightmare and someone was always going to be unhappy with the outcome no matter what.
Proposals for change? What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
A: I have urged folks at RfA that we do have a review process for admin conduct in the hope that folks will be more lenient/openminded in voting (with a more fluid admin/deadmin ethos in mind), but that has been plainly unsuccessful. The most straightforward option would be to rejig the scope of the AUSC to be include use of admin tools, but we'll see how it develops.

Individual questions[edit]

This section is for individual questions asked to this specific candidate. Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below. The question should:

be clearly worded and brief, with a limit of 75 words in display mode;
be specific to this candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages);
not duplicate other questions (editors are encouraged to discuss the merging of similar questions);

Election coordinators will either remove questions that are inconsistent with the guidelines or will contact the editor to ask for an amendment. Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time.

Please add the question under the line below using the following format:

Question: "Refusal to get the point" is a disruption that's hard to enforce. Editors can be dense about consensus (often on purpose) for months, by repeatedly trying to delete/demote a consensus guideline, attacking the forum when they fail, and otherwise ignoring the consensus guideline completely. What signs should ArbCom look for to identify someone who has crossed the line from good faith dissent to bad faith refusing to get the point, and what's an appropriate remedy? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A:Generally the committee can only accept a case requested by another editor or editors. That said, these type of editors end up at arbitration sooner or later. At the end of the day it boils down to (a) is this editor a significant longitudinal net negative, and (b) are they showing insight into changing, and if the answer to (a) is "yes" and (b) is "no", then the revocation or serious sanctions of editing privileges really has to be considered very seriously. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I have this pet peeve, when I decide to care, about arbs quitting immediately when they encounter unfavorable commentary. I'd like the folks we elect to be able to handle the crap we throw. Sometimes it seems the reason we exist is to throw crap at each other and we all feel so much better about things when we throw crap at arbs (especially when they deserve it, amirite?). You put yourself up to community scrutiny last time you were an arb. Something about someone's sockpuppet or something. I don't think the details were that noteworthy then and I've done my best to forget them. I'd like to know you're going to stay an arb this time, unless circumstances in your life off-Wiki make it difficult. I'm not going to ask a question, really, but I'd still like to know your thoughts on this. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes, although I do think all arbs should take time to be active in other aspects of wikipedia, such as FA, GA, dyk or wikimedia stuff. I really think it helps communication and understanding both ways. Hence a committee of 18 allows arbs to have a break and a recharge should circumstances arise. I didn't leave because of the flack but because I felt like a real ~~shmuck~~ hypocrite. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Hi Casliber and good luck! Touching on another aspect of Moni3's question above, if you encountered the same situation again (becoming aware of a sockpuppet account which is or seeks to become an admin), how would you handle it now, and how would you handle it if you are elected as an arb? Franamax (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: Apologise to the person but inform them that I (regretfully) have to inform the committee (both now or when I am an arb). The good thing is there is history of editors coming back from bans and being elected to adminship, so point out that it is possible. I hated backchannelling then and should have been smarter first up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Offliner. Until now, you have had a neutral opinion of editor X. Then, X arrives in an arbitrator case to post evidence against editor Y. How will your impression of editor X change? Offliner (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A:That is a pretty open-ended question and probably summs up a great many situations at arbitration (i.e. person I have no strong opinion about either way posting evidence). Well the first step is to review the evidence and take it from there. Steps such as providing diffs are good as they endeavour to show the original issue rather than the second editor's opinion of them (although looking before and after to get a sense of context is crucial). Can you embellish your question at all? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
In the past, I think ArbCom has sometimes been hostile to editors who have presented evidence, or at least viewed these editors as "battleground participants" and thus part of the problem. That's why it would be interesting to know if and how your impression of an editor changes when he presents evidence. Do you think there have been cases in the past when the ArbCom has shot the messenger? Do you think presenting evidence is a good or bad thing, and under what circumstances? Offliner (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think each case needs to be taken on its own merit, and we've seen a range of responses. For instance, Stevertigo initiated his request, which resulted in him being banned. That is an extreme case. I have been involved in initiating RfCs when I have felt exasperated, so I do sympathise when one feels one has reached a last resort point (i.e. requesting a case). The best I presenting evidence succinctly and in context (warts'n'all - even if the requester places their own problematic edits there) is better than selective evidence Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can arbcom help with the problems associated with expert retention? How will your election to arbcom help or hurt efforts to get more experts to contribute and be welcomed at Wikipedia? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A:Ideally yes (I have no idea how many experts have stayed because of arbcom intervention that would have left otherwise) - providing a neutral venue where a dispute can be reviewed, and observing how sources are being used (and the strength of arguments), in the development of a neutral comprehensive encyclopedia. Experts are extremely helpful in the evaluation of various sources to determine the weight given them and explain to others. On thinking about it, this was one of the reasons I decided to run this year, as I feel having a background in science and also writing Good/Featured Content bolsters the ability of arbcom to review how editors are using sourcing in disputes to further a particular "side" and how close/far it is from a consensus scientific viewpoint.
Question: In your candidate statement, you say ""in fact I'd like to believe that I was one of the folks on the committee in early 2009 who helped the committee be more proactive in reviewing and taking action over admin conduct at that time" Could you expand on that with reference to the "desysoppings in 2009" that you mention in your answer to general question 4? Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC) As disclosed here, this is part of a set of discussions on 'previous service record' that I am initiating with all current and former arbitrators about their candidacies.[reply]
A: