From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cabayi

Hi! I'm Cabayi. I have 16 years experience on wiki, 31 months as an SPI clerk, 4 years as an admin & as a WP:VRT agent, 3 years as a global renamer, & a first term Arbitrator with the 28 months as a CU/OS that comes with that.

Last time around my strongest opinion on Arbcom was for the need for a strong, active and vibrant Arbcom to ensure the community remains in control of its own affairs and to keep the Foundation's tanks off our lawn. Two years of having interacted productively with T&S more closely have reassured me that T&S "get it"

Like 2021, my most defining trait would be a low tolerance for behaviour which wastes volunteer time & detracts from the work of building an encyclopedia. I have developed a dislike for WP:DENY - blocked users will appeal their blocks, and they need to appeal at the right forum. ArbCom could shed a fair proportion of the workload if ALL blocked users were properly notified of their block, instead of 15 arbitrators needing to take a look and bounce the appeal to the proper place.

Again, my !votes will not be for or against users but for whatever is good for Wikipedia and to reassure users that the tools are being used within policy

In the coming term I anticipate that we will need to consider how enwiki policy may be impacted by the introduction of UCoC, and whether enwiki policy fully implements it.

Declaration: All my previous accounts are declared on my user page. I've signed the confidentiality agreement.

As was the case at ACE2021 my concern is that the job is done, not that I must be the person chosen to do it. I'm willing to put in the time and effort, but so are my colleagues and the first-time candidates. In that spirit I offer myself again for your consideration for another spin on Wikipedia's honeywagon. Cabayi ( talk) 14:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply


Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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.

  2. This year's committee has had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators. What experience do you have, particularly on Wikipedia, with doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard? Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Availability of time is seldom my limiting factor. For hard tasks I usually step back and try to rethink it from a different angle. There's usually an "easier" line of attack. For example, in our current discussion, Marshall McLuhan may be my key for examining it. Cabayi ( talk) 16:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  4. Do you think ArbCom should be more transparent about the outcomes of private inquiries, especially regarding admins and functionaries? This question is motivated by the admin meatpuppetry situation in September, but it's up to you whether to discuss that situation in particular. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 06:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    As a general rule we deliberate on-wiki evidence in public and off-wiki evidence in private. Confidential information (gathered as ArbCom, checkuser, oversight, or functionary) should be kept confidential even when the outcome is a block or a desysop. Doxxing is not something I'd want to see from ArbCom. ArbCom owes a good verdict for the good of the project. It doesn't owe a satisfying end to a story. Was there something you found deficient in the resolution to that case? Cabayi ( talk) 16:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I was trying to avoid too leading a question, but if you'd like a more specific one: ArbCom's initial action in the case was to compel self-disclosure of the shared IPs, but to take no action regarding the meatpuppetry. The community only became aware of the issue because I chose to then take it to AN, which referred it back to ArbCom, which then was on the verge of accepting a case when both admins resigned. Do you feel that ArbCom handled my initial private report appropriately? -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 20:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes. It's not unknown for two individuals to have common interests and a shared world-view. Even two admins. You were not the first person to make the connection. Public disclosure was this committee's attempt to ensure you were the last to do so with a sense of discovering of something concealed. Obviously, the situation did not resolve as we and they hoped & anticipated. Cabayi ( talk) 09:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  6. The majority of ArbCom's workload is in handling private matters, not public ones such as cases. Can you please elaborate on how you will handle the large volume of private work the Committee receives? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 17:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Whatever the composition of next year's committee Eek, the loss of the Arb herder Izno will leave a large gap in getting Arbitrators to attend to the outstanding tasks. I will continue to comment early when I see things clearly, and to wait for wiser eyes than mine when I don't. The committee's geographical distribution will probably continue to mean I'm either among the early comments, or the issue will be settled by the time I see it. Cabayi ( talk) 19:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  8. In one case this year, ArbCom themselves served as the "filing party", accepting a case that had not immediately been brought to them. What are your thoughts on ArbCom taking actions via full cases when they don't have a request from the community to do so? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    That case was not brought on-wiki which put ArbCom in the position of stepping in as the "filing party" for the record. A more "involved" example would be the Lourdes case request filed by an arbitrator who recused. Arbitrators are still community members with all that entails, only needing to maintain a visible disinterest in the cases they handle. Cabayi ( talk) 23:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  10. Arbcom seems to limit itself to a very narrow range of responses to admins, with nothing in the gap between admonition and desysopping. What sort of things should it do when admonition isn't enough but a desysop is too much? Ϣere SpielChequers 09:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    We have struggled with this issue. We have three flavours of response - caution, warning and admonishment - which vary only in the tone of stern voice and level of finger wagging. Then a large gap to the major sanction of desysop. Anything we have been able to conjure up that could fill that gap would also undermine the admin's credibility needed to perform the admin role effectively and authoritatively. It's a conundrum. If you have ideas for ArbCom I can promise you 15 eager recipients regardless of whether I am still in that number. Cabayi ( talk) 23:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I knoew I'd said as much before WereSpielChequers. Here it is - Special:Diff/1180079265. Cabayi ( talk) 15:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  12. There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past, and there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force. Tension on the talkpage of the Elbonian civil war has spilled out into an acrimonious RFA for one of the protagonists, and the press have reported demonstrations about this article in the capital town of Elbonia and in several villages during the current visit of the US president to Elbonia. Cases being filed with Arbcom include: You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility; Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager; Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. Which bits of the Universal Code of Conduct have been breached by this kerfuffle and what if anything should Arbcom do about it? Ϣere SpielChequers 09:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    "There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past" - there has. From my perspective, the WMF are now more aware that they need to act with, and in support of, the community structures such as ArbCom rather than undermining or bypassing them. ArbCom are more aware of the need to keep a tidy house (for want of a better metaphor).
    "there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force" - (according to the sales pitch) The UCoC was crafted to encapsulate the basics of good behaviour as defined in enwiki's policies and apply them across all WMF's projects. As such enwiki is the project least likely to need recourse to UCoC remedies. Our own home-grown policies should have tried-and-trusted pathways to resolve relevant issues.
    To your Elbonian issues...
    The RFA, its conduct, considering the legitimacy of votes cast, considering whether votes were solicited on the Elbonian wiki, and discerning the RFA'a outcome are in the care of the crats such as yourself.
    On the evidence presented, as an arbitrator, I'd be voting to decline the case requests as there is no evidence of any prior attempts at dispute resolution. I'll assume for the purposes of the question that the proper pre-arbitration steps have been taken.
    You don't specify whether the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage was reverted or self-reverted. It's not a desysop issue unless the longstanding admin refuses to see any problem with their action. As the case has presumably been discussed on the longstanding admin's user talk page and at WP:AN prior to the case request we may be looking at an admin who has lost touch with community expectations of how their tools are to be used.
    Absent any specifics I'm unsure whether our new young admin is being doxxed (oversight action perhaps leading to an oversight bloc of the doxxer) or where it's a plain old personal attack which is best handled as an admin action (perhaps by an arbitrator).
    Having disposed of the issues under enwiki policy, I don't see a need to dip into the Universal Code of Conduct toolbox for remedies.
    FWIW, I have on one occasion privately suggested a remedy under UCoC. As in the examples you present, the issue got resolved through more customary means. Cabayi ( talk) 09:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  14. I love to sing the music of Mozart and Pärt, Requiem and Da pacem Domine. What does the RfC about an infobox for Mozart tell you regarding WP:CT infoboxes, and can you offer ideas towards peace? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    From an arbitration perspective, it looks like a reasonable discussion of the matter in hand with no user conduct issues to trouble me.
    As an editor I feel that the article on Mozart should look like a Wikipedia article, not its own special creation. Memories of past ancient discussions about succession boxes with Pigsonthewing lead me to guess there may be microformat benefits to infoboxes which improve the article's usefulness. Cabayi ( talk) 11:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  16. Thanks for standing as a candidate for the ArbCom. You maybe be familiar with a recent Law and Social Inquiry article titled "Canceling Disputes: How Social Capital Affects the Arbitration of Disputes on Wikipedia" that was the subject of the current article on the Signpost. In addition, a previous paper from 2017 in International Sociology also examined similar trends from the ArbCom. In short, these papers argue about the existence of external factors influencing ArbCom decisions such as editor tenure, and raise concerns about canvasing among others. Are you concerned about the issues presented in the articles, or do you have any other concerns about the structure or operations of the ArbCom?

    Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish• growths) 16:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

    When I find on the first page of an article that Wikipedia has 4 million registered users, and {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} says 47,353,482, I doubt the rigour of the piece.
    It put me in mind of an anecdote in Mark McCormack's book What They Don't Teach You at Harvard Business School [1] in which an employee was fired despite being "right" in a dispute with his boss. The point is that ArbCom's role is to uphold the process, not to uphold either party to the dispute. It's possible, maybe even probable, that long-tenured users will have a better grasp of how to behave.
    If you've been following the recent, regrettably necessary announcement on WP:ACN you'll have noted that long tenure and social capital do not have the impact claimed. Cabayi ( talk) 12:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  18. In the World War II and history of Jews in Poland case, you opposed a site ban for Volunteer Marek, on the grounds that "a site ban is premature", albeit "by nowhere near as wide a margin as VM would hope". I have two questions regarding this vote: (1) What would have been enough in this case to warrant a site ban, given Wugapodes' rationale laying out years of misconduct, including after previous topic and interaction bans? (2) Are you concerned that votes like this might send a message that some editors, particularly long-term editors with many friends, are treated differently than other editors? voorts ( talk/ contributions) 18:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Blocks should be preventative, not punitive. If TBANs and IBANs can keep VM from further conflict, why go for a CBAN? There was a route out of the situation which kept VM as a productive editor. What do you think would have been gained by moving straight to a site ban? Cabayi ( talk) 09:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Friendships did not enter into my thinking. Nor did it when I blocked a user for LOUTSOCKing and got reverted by community consensus. Cabayi ( talk) 10:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  20. Since the previous question cites Wugapodes’s rationale, I’m interested in your answer to this along with that: Excluding Wugapodes’s conclusion that the evidence was enough to merit a site ban, do you disagree with Wugapodes’s analysis in any meaningful way and why? — Danre98( talk^ contribs) 02:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    No meaningful way, no. But there seemed to be a way forward which was more productive than a site ban. That's why I opposed "by nowhere near as wide a margin as VM would hope". Cabayi ( talk) 10:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  22. In your opinion, what is the single worst remedy or finding-of-fact that the Arbitration Committee has voted in support of during a case or motion that was resolved in 2022 or 2023? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Worst? I could give you harsh, where we've stripped privileges from good people as a necessary act in maintaining community confidence that advanced tools were only being used in accordance with policy. I could give you unresolved, where we've handled a matter but have a low confidence that it won't come back for further attention. Ranking from best to worst isn't a view I've considered, nor is it a view that will help future considerations. Cabayi ( talk) 11:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  24. In your opinion, what is the single most important thing that the Arbitration Committee has needed to improve upon throughout 2022 and 2023, and how will you improve upon it when you are elected to the committee? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The ArbCom has a portfolio of tasks. User appeals, ARCA, case requests & cases, liaison with T&S... I would not pick a single task that needs to be elevated over the others. Nor would I pick a single way of being an arbitrator as being superior to another. We have arbs who are good at shepherding our workload (and shepherding arbitrators), who have incredible experience at oversight, who handle appeals in a particular way that the other arbs find helpful, who have a deep knowledge of ARBPOL and processes, who can bring insight into the renaming process, who have deep institutional memory. It's the blend that makes ArbCom work. Cabayi ( talk) 11:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  26. what is the most important type of editor? ltb d l ( talk) 07:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Active. Cabayi ( talk) 11:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  28. do you support mandatory registration for wikipedia editing? why or why not? ltb d l ( talk) 07:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'd like to see some more analysis of the effect on the Portuguese wiki before committing to it, but I'm leaning towards the idea. From a functionary perspective it would eliminate the need for oversighters to suppress the IPs of editors who forget to log in before editing, and it would reduce (the already small opportunity) for checkusers to accidentally link IPs to users. Cabayi ( talk) 18:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  30. Would you care if an article for a kids tv show got vandalized with false information? Scoophole2021 ( talk). 07:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes. There I many topics I would never consider writing about myself but would be troubled about if they were written about poorly or vandalised. I recently bought a copy of Willo the Wisp for the nostalgia value & have a Foghorn Leghorn stuffed toy staring at me right now, so it's not as if I could claim to be above kids TV. Kids TV (and nostalgia for it) has its place. Fighting vandalism is separate from the article's topic matter. Cabayi ( talk) 10:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  32. Consider the hypothetical where the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus under WP:IAR that violates WP:CONEXCEPT. The English Wikipedia community attempts to enforce that consensus but the WMF pushes back, resulting in wheel and edit warring. If an ARBCOM case was opened on this matter would you sanction editors attempting to enforce the consensus, and would you support the English Wikipedia's right to come to that consensus? BilledMammal ( talk) 11:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I couldn't be specific without knowing which element of WP:CONEXCEPT you have in mind.
    Legal - I generally go with the notion "Why have a dog and bark yourself". If the lawyers tell us something is legally required, I'll listen. Having heard their reports to ArbCom on the legal actions in which they are involved on our behalf; having seen some of their handling of issues which head their way through VRTS tickets; believe me, Legal are the good guys. The explanations they give to ArbCom, which they can't give in public, about cases which the community are generally unaware, are always informative and reassuring to hear.
    Office actions - Your question's scenario suggests that this point and WP:FRAMBAN are at the root of your question. For the first two or three meetings with the WMF which I attended I mentioned Fram. I am convinced they know they shouldn't have bypassed or undermined ArbCom and the project's other mechanisms, and that they should work with, not around, the processes in place.
    ArbCom decisions - An ArbCom vs community scenario. Not a pretty prospect. If the community don't like a decision they can vote in a new set of arbitrators at the next election and ask the new committee to reconsider.
    The fourth CONEXCEPT criterion is outside ArbCom's remit. Cabayi ( talk) 18:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  34. The roles of checkusers and oversighters are currently managed at the pleasure of the sitting arbitration committee. What, if any, conditions would be necessary for you to support divorcing checkuser and oversight functions from the arbitration committee, making these roles managed by the community instead? — xaosflux Talk 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The permissions are based on access to non-public information. The community would need to be able to monitor the use of the non-public information. Unless all 47,353,482 registered users are going to sign the NDA the task will need to be delegated to a group of users. A group of users who the community routinely reassesses and re-selects. A group that would look a lot like the Arbitration committee in fact. I could see a case for two parallel ArbComs, one for functionary permissions and one for the other tasks. I can see a bigger case against. Cabayi ( talk) 09:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  36. You have served previously on the Arbitration Committee. How would you respond to concerns that not enough new blood is injected into the committee, and how if at all do you think a high proportion of former arbs in the new tranche would affect ArbCom? Fermiboson ( talk) 01:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    With just 10 candidates for 8 seats I'd rather see more blood, old or new. Former arbs bring institutional memory. New arbs bring new viewpoints. A mix is good. A wide range of different experience enriches our discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 10:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  38. At what point does WP:STONEWALLING escalate beyond just a content dispute into disruptive behavior that is appropriate for ANI or AE to act on? Sennalen ( talk) 04:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    At the point at which it has become objectionable to a number of editors. Intransigence and an unwillingness to engage in dialog are often the triggers. Cabayi ( talk) 10:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  40. My Guide to Arbitration contains observations from my two terms an an arb and three stints as a clerk. I attempted to capture what tends to happen in a case rather than what should happen. Which observation do you disagree with the most and why? -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 07:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    So much of it rang true that I'm finding it hard to find a point with which I disagree. Perhaps you're harsh on those of our colleagues who identify as lizard people?
    You state that "Nobody knows the difference between a reminder, warning, and an admonishment". I have a recollection that last year we drew a parallel between those three words and levels 2, 3, and 4 of the user warnings. Since, as a committee, we have no hesitation on skipping steps or moving straight to blocks and bans, it's probably a meaningless distinction. Cabayi ( talk) 10:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  42. I have recently finished a rewrite of Genghis Khan. What is the worst problem with the article at this revision, and why? Please reference relevant policies or guidelines. I am asking this question to candidates whose ability to evaluate/write content I am not immediately convinced by.. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is an election for arbitrators, not content creators. The boilerplate answer you'd get from arbitration is:
    Thank you for your email. The Arbitration Committee primarily looks after user conduct issues and are therefore unable to help you in this instance. ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration) You are welcome to edit the talk page of the article in question to raise your issue there.
    I know it's not the answer you want, but the task is irrelevant to the role. Cabayi ( talk) 10:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  44. You voted in the recent Arbcom motion which removed another arbitrator. Without commenting on the merits of the action itself (which, as far as I can see, other arbs have already done to the extent confidentiality allows them to), what are your thoughts on 1. the timing of the action as being so close to the election, in particular the action itself being announced less than 24 hours before the start of the election, and 2. additional concerns raised by the complete lack of transparency and prewarning before the drastic (and as far as I can tell, unprecedented) measure? If you or the clerks consider this two questions, I would prefer you answer 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fermiboson ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The timing isn't ideal for the two of us standing for re-election. In the internal considerations nobody at any point suggested we hold off for a more convenient time. We handle the issues that come to the committee as they arrive, whether convenient or not.
    prewarning: Beeblebrox was aware that the matter was being discussed and was aware of what the issue was.
    lack of transparency: To state the obvious, you're electing a committee to handle private evidence in private and to keep matters confidential. It's the job description.
    As I stated in a previous answer, "ArbCom owes a good verdict for the good of the project. It doesn't owe a satisfying end to a story." Cabayi ( talk) 09:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  46. Where in the world are you based? BirgittaMTh ( talk) 10:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Europe.
  48. Are you aware, that English is de facto world language and English Wikipedia is used by vast number of global population, not only from English-speaking-countries (as (mostly) most trustworthy of all wikipedias)? And thusly, e.g. Point Of View of e.g. US of A might not be Neutral Point Of View in things, that occur all over the globe, like measles or climate or cars :) BirgittaMTh ( talk) 10:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I am aware, and am a truly grateful recipient of other people's proficiency with English when I travel abroad.
    I'm inclined to slap a {{ cn}} on "most trustworthy of all wikipedias". The English Wikipedia, being the most prominent project, is consequently the battleground of choice for many conflicts. Its reliability comes from having most eyeballs.
    As you say NPOV may have a cultural element. Measles, along with rubella, chickenpox and mumps were standard childhood diseases in Europe. Elsewhere in the world they were mass killers. Prevention is a laudable & NPOV aim regardless of location. Cabayi ( talk) 11:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  50. I've spent 10 unsuccessful minutes trying to find the meaning of VRTS in the above answers. Could you tell me what it means please? Kelly222 ( talk) 20:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sorry Kelly222, I should have linked it. WP:VRTS is the system for handling emails to Wikipedia. Cabayi ( talk) 21:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  52. I support maximizing independence from WM. I read WP:DENY which openly identifies itself as an essay (with POV), not policy. Please clarify what you don't like about it: the moralistic tone? the presumptuous psychology reminiscent of Criminal Minds profiling? or the process of accusation and appeal, the latter clearly noted in your statement? Martindo ( talk) 02:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Martindo, I've moved your question. I agree wholeheartedly with WP:DENY's objective of not feeding the trolls. My problem is with the extra work it creates for admins handling appeals and for users who spot obvious socks but then have difficulty linking them to their ultimate sockmasters. DENY is being applied more widely than is useful. Cabayi ( talk) 10:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ McCormack, Mark H. (1994). What they don't teach you at Harvard Business School. London: HarperCollins. p. 87. ISBN  9780006369530.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Candidates/Cabayi&oldid=1185870796"