THC Science

Individual questions[edit]

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Gerda[edit]

I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. Imagine you had been an arb, what would you have written in reply?
Since I have not actually seen the confidential evidence provided to ArbCom by the WMF Office, it's difficult for me to say exactly how I would have replied to you. Based on what I do know, it does appear that there were sufficient concerns about Fram's conduct to justify desysopping him. The furthest I think I could go beyond this would have been to urge !voters at Fram's new RfA to base their decisions on the publicly visible record, not to draw unsupported conclusions based on information that was not public, and for the 'crats closing the RfA not to give inappropriate weight to comments / !votes not solidly grounded in publicly available information.

Information available concerned LouisAlain. Do you see something there that suggests abuse of tools?
In reviewing this user's talk page, my first impression is that the user sees himself (or, at least, presents himself) as someone who is trying to make constructive contributions but is continually being batted down by the merciless nitpicking of other editors — who, for their part, seem to see a dense, fumbling editor who simply cannot or will not learn how to do things right. Given that the user in question has been around here for over eight years, I'm less inclined to give him slack and more inclined to side with the other editors, though I might be willing to revise my opinion upon deeper study.
Same case, same thread, but more formal (bcause I don't want to discuss LouisAlain but alleged wrongdoings of Fram): subheader LouisAlain. Imagine you had been an arb, what would you have written in reply?
Could you specifically name some of the articles which LouisAlan created, and which Fram deleted? I've tried searching through talk pages and logs, and I'm having trouble finding exactly what you are referring to.

Not really my point. My point is that "broad impressions" of the talk page may be that Fram did something wrong, so somebody complained, but I bet that nobody, not even that unknown somebody, looked at any detail. And therefore, doubting a diligent look at what I can see, so doubting even more a diligent look at what we all can't see, I would have preferred to keep Fram an admin. - To make it short: which remedy would you have supported? I could have asked that to start with, but wanted to explain where I come from. For "broad impressions" (which I had to observe and experience) see what the great SBHB said in a nutshell, look for "pocket guide". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As an arb, I would of course study the available material as thoroughly as possible before reaching a conclusion. Digging and sifting through walls of text in search of relevant nuggets or flakes, however, is time-consuming and prone to error; I do understand (and support) the concept that people raising an issue with ArbCom need to pinpoint the passages of concern with diffs. And as I've already said, if I were to become part of a review of the Fram case, I would need to see where the confidential evidence offered in the case might lead before I would feel at all qualified to say that Fram's treatment was or was not fair. I think that's all I'm going to say about the Fram case at this time.

Question from Joe Roe[edit]

Hi Rich. Thanks for putting yourself forward. I have one question for all candidates. – Joe (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of arbitration decisions is inevitable. This criticism is often expressed in strong and personal terms. As an arbitrator, how will you respond to criticism, either of you personally or the committee as a whole? Do you think it will it affect your ability to remain objective?
I certainly don't enjoy being criticized — I don't think any sane person really would — but I try my best to handle it, and I think I do a reasonably good job of it. One example (admittedly several years old) of how I handle personal criticism can be found in this RFC/U from 2011. I can try looking for other examples if people want them.

Questions from Collect[edit]

Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?
Probably a good idea in theory, though it might not always be practical in situations (such as recently) when there haven't been enough active arbitrators. Also, "in any way" and "any related cases" could easily be interpreted overly broadly, and different people could legitimately disagree about a specific situation.
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?
Within reason, people involved in a case should normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to claims made by others.
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?
Again, within reason — though I would personally prefer not to bring up specific evidence on my own, since that's not really what an arbitrator should be doing IMO.

Questions from WBG[edit]

Do you feel that arbitrators shall strive to make decent efforts to (meaningfully) engage with critical commentary focused on any of their actions, which are taken entirely on the basis of public evidence?
The ideal scenario should be that discussions and decisions in arbitration cases are based on publicly disclosed evidence. There will be occasional exceptions, but I would resist making a decision on the basis of confidential evidence unless a given rare situation required it. I have not seen the confidential evidence related to the Fram case, so I am not going to speculate in detail on that particular case.

Thanks.
Your fellow candidate, Gadfium writes:- Arbs should be highly responsive to community concerns on the talk pages of cases. Do you agree with the premises of the statement?
I am uncomfortable with this comment because it sounds to me like a suggestion that ArbCom should rule in ways that are popular, rather than deciding what the right course of action is in the situation at hand. I would actually be surprised if that were really what Gadfium meant, and I'm not going to presume to put words in their mouth. Arbitrators should certainly be open to considering points made by the community, but they shouldn't flap in the winds of popular opinion or feel pressured to satisfy the demands of the most vocal contributors to talk-page discussions.

Thanks. My last question (in all probabilities) follow from this locus.
Please comment on the behavior of arbitrators, as seen over here. Check the corresponding t/p and this thread, in particular. Do you note any lack of responsiveness? Do you feel that the displayed behavior abides by general community expectations of arbitrator conduct? Shall we expect similar behavior from you, if you are elected?
There are clearly some serious concerns here over the handling of the "Antisemitism in Poland" case. Without taking sides at present, I will say that reasonable requests for feedback do deserve a reasonably prompt response. I also recognize that in a dispute over a divisive topic with entrenched opposing viewpoints, there are sure to be people in the end who are convinced their wrongs have not been righted, so the fact that some continue to nurse grievances does not necessarily mean the final decision was fatally flawed. If I am on ArbCom next year, I will ask my colleagues whether they agree with how this case was handled and whether there is a consensus for reopening it — though, of necessity, I cannot guarantee how things will turn out as a result.

Questions from 28bytes[edit]

What can you tell us about your experience with the Ombudsman Commission? Did the commission fulfill its responsibilities during your tenure? What changes, if any, need to be made there?
The Ombudsman Commission served a useful purpose during the time I was a member. However, I was often disappointed about cases where we were unable to do anything because our scope of responsibility was very narrow, and we were sometimes asked to do things we were not authorized to do. The OC's mandate was, in fact, so narrow that I feel we were often forced to do disservice to people who came to us for help, but whom we were required to turn away without necessarily being able to direct them anywhere else.
What did the current ArbCom do right regarding the Fram situation? What should it have done differently?
As best I can tell from what has been made public, the current ArbCom acted well by pressing the WMF for explanations / justifications of its office action against Fram. While I do concede that (in rare cases) evidence used to make decisions must remain confidential, I believe this sort of thing should happen as rarely as possible, for the sake of editor morale and other reasons. It's difficult for me to answer this question in more detail than this, given that I haven't seen the confidential material in question (and will probably not be at liberty to discuss it openly even if/when I do get to see it). W/r/t Fram's RfA, I think this process may have been unduly influenced by the circumstances which led to his being desysopped in the first place. While I want to respect confidential evidence, I would have been inclined to argue that users participating in the RfA should have been strongly and explicitly advised not to draw any preconceived conclusions, good or bad.

Questions from Newslinger[edit]

When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?
Generally not. Discretionary sanctions are designed to address articles in topic areas that are given to fractious, disruptive argument. The current areas of conflict justifying discretionary sanctions are generally not troublesome because of paid editing activity as such. If it becomes evident that a given view is being overly aggressively pushed in a topic area coverable by discretionary sanctions, and that said inappropriate editing happens to involve undisclosed paid editing supporting some view and suppressing opposing views, then discretionary sanctions will probably be appropriate irrespective of the existence of the UPE, and the UPE issue can be addressed as well — but UPE all by itself would rarely, if ever, be a sufficient reason by itself to involve the DS mechanism.
To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?
Two-factor authentication is a valuable method for making one's account more secure. I use 2FA, and I would encourage anyone who is the least bit concerned about the security of their Wikipedia account to use it. Whether ArbCom is in a good position to endorse or mandate 2FA is a difficult question; my impression at the moment is that ArbCom's role in endorsing 2FA would / should probably be limited to admonishing or sanctioning users with advanced rights whose accounts get compromised and who were not using 2FA.

Questions from Wehwalt[edit]

To what extent, if any, should an editor's stated personal characteristics, such as gender identity and similar, play a part in determining the outcome of cases, including cases in which evidence is heard privately? Do you believe the present arbitration committee has followed the practice you advocate in its decisions over the past three months?
I don't believe an editor's stated personal characteristics should play any part in the outcome of an arbitration case. The WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies are based on the idea that we are working here with content on its own merits, without regard to personal details of the editors discussing the content. And from reviewing the past several months' worth of cases, it's not obvious to me that this particular issue even arose in any recent case. If there is a specific case involving this concern which you believe I have overlooked, please cite it and I'll be happy to go take another look.
So you're then saying that things would have played out more or less the same in your view if Fram had been Framma, member in good standing of Women in Red, and the inciting editor been Lorenzo Hale, husband of the board chair? Just as an example. And don't read any opinions of mine in the foregoing, I'm trying to delve for your views at a critical time.
Hard for me to say. Would "Framma" have acted in the same way as Fram? Would the Office have treated "Framma" the same as, or differently than, they treated Fram (especially difficult to say because of the confidentiality)? Would participants in a re-RfA for "Framma" have been more sympathetic to her as a woman, or would they have taken her less seriously than if she were a man? For myself, I would try in a case like this not to base my decisions on "personal characteristics", and I would argue for such a stance in my discussions with other arbs. And yes, I do realize there were sexism issues involved in the Fram incident, but that makes it all the less easy for me to imagine a coherent "Framma" scenario in which sex / gender roles were flipped.

Questions from Nosebagbear[edit]

Once the new ARBCOM is in we'll be seeing an "RfC [with] focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future.". Personally, what particular questions/aspects would you want to see discussed?
I was not familiar with this RFC previously, and if I understand Worm That Turned's answer to this same question, a draft RFC was created but has not been made public. I agree with both WTT and Nosebagbear that we should seek a balance between allowing editors a "safe place" to report what they perceive as harassment vs. being able to investigate what is behind the complaint (i.e., which side, if either, is in the right). One big problem with private evidence — useful and even necessary as it sometimes is — is that people can be sanctioned on the basis of claims they don't know and therefore cannot defend themselves against, and the community is far less inclined to trust the good faith of the sanctioning body if the reasons behind their decision are kept secret (even if this was done for a good and necessary reason).

Questions from The Rambling Man[edit]

You've made barely 200 edits on Wikipedia in the last year. We have seen recent examples of Arb candidates who claim they will, despite edit history, be available for Wikipedia. And then fail to live up to that promise. What makes you different?
I will concede that my activity has been lower of late. Some of this is due to my concentrating on suppression / Oversight matters, which are not visible in the public logs, but even that would only add about another 100 actions in 2019. It's hard for anyone to predict with accuracy how active they will be (unless perhaps if they're retired and have a lot more free time). I may end up having more time if I follow through on my tentative plans to retire next summer, but that would be speculation at this point. All I can really say here and now is that, if elected to ArbCom, I will put into the role the time and effort required to do it well. Some people will not be convinced by that and may decide to oppose me because of my low activity in the recent past, and they are free to do so if that is how they feel. Addendum: Please note, fwiw, that I have decided to retire from my "day job" at the end of this year — a major change in my time commitments which I plan, at least in part, to take advantage of by devoting more time next year to Wikipedia in whatever way presents itself.

Questions from EllenCT[edit]

If you were an ordinary non-functionary editor and believed that you were being harassed by a WP:TAGTEAM of COI editors who you thought were involved in organized and likely paid advocacy, under the current composition of enwiki dispute resolution and the T&S organization, how would you raise the issue? By private email or in the open? With the Foundation, community, WP:ANI, ORTS, Arbcom, and/or some other means? What are the most significant advantages and disadvantages of the various choices? EllenCT (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To make things simple, I would recommend that the editor should e-mail paid-en-wpwikipedia.org with a description of their concerns. It might be something that can appropriately be discussed on-wiki, or it might merit more discreet handling, but I would request (and follow) the advice of the people at this e-mail list.
Do you personally trust the co-architect of superprotect leading T&S to act in the best interest of the community? Why or why not? EllenCT (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was unfamiliar with Superprotect until just now. Having read about it, I think it could have been useful in extremely rare emergency situations, but it was deployed in a manner that failed to respect the community, so any possible usefulness was torpedoed by the bad feelings generated. As for whether someone responsible for Superprotect could be trusted to lead the Trust and Safety team, I'm hesitant to try to answer this question at the present time; hopefully the fallout from the Fram incident will lead to more careful action by T&S in future, but we'll just have to see how that works out.

Question from Peacemaker67[edit]

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 believe I would have hesitated to accept this case without first seeing the results of reasonable attempts to use on-wiki tools such as ANI. I suspect attempts at dispute resolution would probably have failed, but there is still value in trying them, if only to make the issues clearer and give more rope to editors who are unwilling to cooperate in dispute resolution efforts. I do respect the claim that some important evidence was private and could only be shared with ArbCom, but I'm not convinced this justified taking the case despite no public attempts at solution. On the other hand, the fact that all but one of the participating arbs voted to accept the case leads me to wonder if I might have changed my mind in the course of off-wiki discussions with the other arbs. As for separating behavioural issues from content disputes, I do think Wikipedia might possibly benefit from a final arbiter for intractable content disputes, but it's very clear that the community does not want ArbCom to step into that role, and I would not propose upsetting that apple cart at this time.

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) 03:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carrite[edit]

What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
There are several issues that come to my mind here, but if I needed to choose "the biggest" problem right now, I would choose the problem of dealing with cases that depend to a significant degree on confidential evidence. ArbCom is supposed to do as much of its decision-making as possible out in the open, and if a decision has to be made that hinges on private information, a disservice is done to (and resentment is elevated within) the community. See the recent Fram controversy for a good example of this. If I were presented with confidential information as an arb, I would read and consider it, but I would try really hard to find publicly available evidence that the private stuff might point to (and then base the final decision on the public stuff). I'm not ready to go so far as to say I would always decline to hear a case that was only (or primarily) going to depend on private information, but I would probably lean somewhat in that direction unless there were very strong and pressing reasons to consider the case anyway. If this might mean I would be the only arb (or maybe one of only two) to ultimately vote to decline a case, then so be it.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Banedon[edit]

Were there any votes in the last few years which you would have voted against what turned out to be the majority decision? If so, which, and why?
As I said earlier, I would have declined to hear the "German war efforts" case (August 2018), pending some genuine (even if futile) efforts at dispute resolution. Additionally, after perusing recently declined arbitration requests, I am disturbed by the frequent behavioural complaints made again User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I won't quite go so far right now as to say I would have voted to accept any of those cases, but if I see one more complaint of repeated personal attacks performed by an admin (who really ought to know better) — whether by Fut.Perf. or someone else — I might very possibly be inclined to accept the case in order to give the situation a thorough investigation — albeit recognizing that other dispute resolution fora should still be used where possible before resorting to ArbCom.

If the answer to the above is no, how would you have voted on certain remedies that split the current committee? Feel free to pick your own remedies; otherwise you can also choose from these: [1], [2], [3]. (Feel free to answer this question as well even if the answer to the above is "yes", although it likely won't be necessary.)

There's a case request today. [4] Would you accept it?
This is about portals. Yes, I would support hearing a case on this topic. While ArbCom cannot impose decisions on content as such, there appear to be significant conduct issues which are ripe for study at this time. Whether dealing with the current conduct problems will clear the air and open the way to a more productive overall discussion, or whether it would simply result in new warriors arising to fill the void, is difficult to say, but we should probably at least try. By saying I would accept a new case on portals at this time, I am not offering any suggestions as to specific actions I would support.

Question from Cassianto[edit]

Last year, I was the named party in the ham-fisted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions, that was brought about as a result of a biased committee not being impartial. The case should've been entitled Infobox 3, but the committee considered it to be too difficult to deal with the infobox problem and instead, made the case exclusively about me - suffice to say, the problem with infobox discussions still exist. I wondered whether, in future cases, not exclusive to IB discussions, you would consider it more important to deal with the cause rather than just the symptom?
"Dealing with the infobox problem" sounds like a content dispute to me — and ArbCom is not authorized to rule on content issues. Really, the only thing ArbCom could have done in this case was to evaluate user (mis)behaviour w/r/t the topic at hand. I would be open to considering remedies enacting new discretionary sanctions for particularly fractious topics, but it would not be possible for me (or any other arb) to "deal with the cause" by deciding that certain kinds of content must / may / may not appear in articles beyond what WP policies already say.

Thank you for your answer, but with respect you've not answered it. Let me try again. The disruption is caused by individuals starting RfC after RfC after RfC on infoboxless articles until they get the answer they want. The byproduct of this repeated disruption is incivility through sheer frustration - we are, after all, only human. Apparantly, the last committee dealt with the "incivility", but we still have the cause, the repeated starting up of infobox discussions and RfCs, as seen on Stanley Kubrick. So, in this scenario, is it more important to deal with the cause or the symptom? Cassianto^Talk 17:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you wish ArbCom would have imposed some sort of policy on when infoboxes can or can't be used (please correct me if I'm mistaken). The problem is that ArbCom is not authorized to decide content disputes — they can urge the community to discuss the matter (as, indeed, they did in the 2013 Infoboxes case), but they aren't allowed to impose decisions on content unless the community has made a decision for ArbCom to enforce (which, in this situation, they haven't). What they can (and, in your case, did) do is impose remedies (sanctions) to enforce acceptable conduct — such as "infobox probation" or (if that doesn't work) wider-ranging bans. If I'm chosen to be an arb, I will follow the policy in this regard. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not my wish at all. Let me be more specific: The disruption is caused when an individual notices an article without an infobox, in this case Stanley Kubrick. They ask why there isn't one, on the talk page, and are told to check the archives as the current consensus is that the article does not carry an IB. Not satisfied with this, they then become uncivil by throwing around OWN accusations, which only goes some way to putting people's backs up. They then start another RfC in the hope of overturning consensus. When that fails, someone else comes along and starts another RfC, which again fails. Then someone else comes along and starts another RfC... I'm sure you get the message. The byproduct of this repeated disruption is frustrated incivility by those who were quietly minding their own business in the first place. Add into the mix, someone completely unconnected to the Kubrick article, who comes along and initiates a case (after some casual canvassing to previous editors of said infobox discussions) and the result is that one of the frustrated editors is sanctioned and the disruptor are allowed to go about their business. That was what the incivility in IB discussions was all about. The case solved nothing, and guess what, since then there has been yet another RfC on Kubrick, literally as recent as month or two ago. I've lost count with how many infobox discussions have taken place on Kubrick, yet according to the last committee, it's the fault of the people who become frustrated rather than those who cause the frustration in the first place. In this scenario, is it better to deal with the cause or the symptom? Cassianto^Talk 12:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at the talk page for Stanley Kubrick just now, I saw a prominent discretionary sanctions notice about (not) adding or proposing to add an infobox. And it appears that similar notices have been on this talk page for quite some time. Have any of the authors of the RfC's you mentioned been alerted to the DS notice? And has anyone who persisted in raising the issue been appropriately sanctioned by an uninvolved admin? If this process has been followed, there shouldn't have been any blowing of tops, and there shouldn't have been any need for a new ArbCom case. Yes, I realize that this answer may seem naïve, but please tell me where you believe the discretionary sanctions system failed or was ignored here. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DS Notices? Not all of the time, but mostly. And what's the point of them anyway? When the last committee came up with the idea, they didn't figure out who'd police it. It's a bit like having a parking ticket and not sending someone out to stick them on windscreens. Again, Bishonen has always obliged with this and had she not, I doubt the old committee would've done; in fact, I'd put my house on it that if I did approach them asking for it to be dished out, Sandstein and his naughty stick would be hot on my trail to administer a block instead. I had no faith in the last committee, and aside from a few candidates here, I'm worried that history may repeat itself. Thanks for your time. Cassianto^Talk 21:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Leaky caldron[edit]

There have been occasional, some might say frequent instances, of a perceived bias in the way that prolific content creators are treated compared to members of the community who support the en-WP in other ways. Is this something you recognise? When these contributors end up at AC - how should they be treated?
To quote one of my userboxes, I believe "that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia." I am more interested in the quality of a user's contributions — of whatever sort — than their number of edits, number of articles created, etc. If someone is acting in a disruptive manner and the situation comes before ArbCom, I really won't care how much content they have created or how many edits they have under their belt. If anything, I will probably need to restrain myself from lowering the boom on a disruptive high-count editor, on the grounds that they should know better.

Question from WereSpielChequers[edit]

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).
As a general principle, I believe anyone who is blocked or banned deserves to know why the action was taken, what (if anything) they can do to get the action lifted, and what will be expected of them if/when they return to editing. As I've previously said, I am simply not going to discuss the Fram case in any detail at this time, but if it turns out that the way T&S and ArbCom handled this situation was necessary, I hope this sort of thing will happen very rarely (if indeed ever again), and if I am chosen as an arb, I will push hard for deliberations and decisions to be as open and transparent as possible (while conceding that some details in some cases simply must remain confidential).

Questions from Caker18[edit]

Can you provide an example of you mediating a conflict where both parties were mutually hostile?
Two examples — Between 2009 and 2012, I tried to mediate an ongoing dispute over Northern Cyprus. Although I think I accomplished some good during this time, it was clear that there were two diametrically opposing camps, each thoroughly convinced that it was pushing The Truth, and neither side being willing to give an inch to the other, so I eventually gave up trying to get them to agree on any sort of neutral middle of the road. And in 2013, I tried to get opposing sides to reach common ground in WP's treatment of a controversial Korean religious leader, Jung Myung Seok, but Jung's supporters and opponents were too deeply entrenched in their views, and I finally had to admit that I wasn't going to get anywhere with them.

Question from SQL[edit]

Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?
I actually can't recall ever having been involved in an unblock discussion. If you want, you can look at this "user conduct request for comment", from 2011, in which I reported a misbehaving editor in hopes that he could be convinced to change his ways and avoid a block.

Question from Praxidicae[edit]

What are your thoughts about functionaries and other advanced permission holders discussing Wikipedia and other Wikimedians (in otherwise good standing) with WMF banned editors, specifically those who have a history of doxing and harassment?
Anyone with knowledge of confidential material from investigations, etc. should obviously be very careful not to leak said information, intentionally or by mistake, to anyone (WMF-banned or otherwise). Beyond that, I'm not going to oppose contact or conversation with people who are not currently allowed to edit Wikipedia, but I would advise caution if there is a decent chance of being pressured into divulging private material. As for myself, I have gone to Wikipediocracy on rare occasion — mostly to search for whatever things people might be saying about me — but I've never posted anything there.

Question from SN54129[edit]

How would you contextualise Peacemaker67's question on the 2018 GWE arbitration case with the more recent suggestion by one sitting arbitrator, who advised Peacemaker...Be careful that MILHIST doesn't become a place where that groupthink crowds out those who genuinely disagree, and another that MILHIST was counsel[ed]...to bear in mind that it does risk becoming a walled garden?
I had not studied the handling of this topic on Wikipedia prior to this election, and I'm not going to claim to be as intimately familiar with it as those who have. If (and only if) clear conduct problems occur, ArbCom can and should get involved. The NPOV policy requires fair, proportionate, and unbiased treatment of significant, reliably sourced views; at the same time, NPOV does not require giving undue weight to fringe theories. Editors can sometimes disagree in good faith over whether a given view is "fringe" or not — this is, I think, a major potential weakness in the NPOV policy, but it needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Whether the "clean Wehrmacht" view is deserving of unbiased treatment per NPOV — or a fringe idea, no more worthy of respect than the flat-earth theory — is a valid content question; enforcing one position or the other on this matter, by closing ranks around one accepted point of view, and chasing away or seeking sanctions against editors who believe differently, risks turning the matter into a conduct dispute of the type ArbCom would be entitled (indeed, obligated) to handle.

Question from Piotrus[edit]

Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [5]. in which I concldued that "A practical recommendation for Wikipedia in particular, and for other communities with collegiate courts in general, is that when electing members to their dispute resolution bodies, those communities would do well to pay attention to how much time the prospective future judges can devote to this volunteering task." In other words, may Arbitrators become inactive due to real world reasons (family, job) and this is not an exception but a rule, repeated time and again throughout ArbCom history. Do you think there is any practical way to deal with this, such as, for example, asking Arbitrators to obligatorily describe, in their election process, how they plan to ensure they have sufficient free time to devote to this activity?
This looks like an interesting study. I'm not sure how well prospective arb activity can be predicted, because it's hard to know what the future will bring. In my case, one big change (for the better) is that I will be retiring at the end of this year — and though I certainly don't expect to devote 100% of my newfound free time to Wikipedia or ArbCom, I am realistically hopeful about spending a good chunk of time here next year.

Question from Gadfium[edit]

In User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates, she says "Know what you'll do if you don't win a seat. This is an important test. Will you continue participating in the building of the encyclopedia? In what areas do you plan on working? Some people have considerable difficulty resuming normal editing life after an unsuccessful run." What will you do if you're not elected?
A fair question. First (I said this before, but it bears repeating), I will be retiring from my real-life day job in January, so I realistically expect to have a bunch of extra time, some (not all, but some) of which I plan to devote to increased activity on Wikipedia. If I don't become an arb, I think I'll resume work as a sockpuppet investigations (SPI) clerk — something I took a break from about a year ago. I also have a to-do list, which has been mostly dormant for some time, but which I'll finally have a chance to whittle away on. Even if I do make the committee, I still hope to work on my to-do list, though of course ArbCom would come first.

Question from Iffy[edit]

While a lot of people are focussing (rightly) on the Fram case, I want to ask you about the Rama case from earlier this year. Would you have voted to desysop Rama? Feel free to explain your answer (especially if your answer is not a simple Yes or No).
Yes, I would have voted to desysop Rama. He doesn't appear to have acted maliciously, but his actions were very reckless and exhibited a real lack of cluefulness regarding how consensus is supposed to work and the kind of example administrators are expected to project to the community. If other arbs had been leaning toward a severe reprimand that stopped short of taking away Rama's mop, I might have been willing to consider that, but that isn't what happened.

Question from Volunteer Marek[edit]

Apologies for late question. There has always been a lot of complaints about lack of communication and transparency with regards to the committee. While this issue is not new, it has never really been adequately addressed, aside from the ever presented hackneyed promises during election time. The complaints have been particularly vociferous recently. Please see this proposal and express your opinion on it. Would you support something like it (even if not exactly in this form) when on ArbCom?
This sounds like a good idea, in principle, and I'm sure I would support some incarnation of it. Although some aspects of ArbCom are inherently confidential and simply can't be shared, I think the Committee should be as transparent as they can be, and should share as much information as possible. I don't expect such a newsletter would allay everyone's concerns — someone who has an objection to an action which cannot / must not be made public will still complain that ArbCom is opaque — but it would be a positive step.

Question from Grillofrances[edit]

Which of the past/current ArbCom judges is the closest to your views how the ArbCom should work like? Why?
Which of the past/current ArbCom judges were the worst in your opinion? Why?
Which is the best written article in English wikipedia in your opinion?
Do you think English wikipedia has enough articles or there should much more of them or a large part of them should be deleted (I realize there should be new articles created in situations like a new MP or mayor is elected or there appears a new popular technology etc.)?
I don't support any sort of limitation on, or purge of, articles in the English Wikipedia.
What do you think about each article update be required to be reviewed by an admin in order to be published in English wikipedia?
Absolutely not. Such a requirement would cause development of articles to grind to a halt — and in any case, this sort of thing is not what administrators are chosen for.
What do you think about obligatory revealing the real name (at least the given name and the first letter of the last name), gender, date of birth, photo, education (level and path) and profession of each of the ArbCom candidates?
I oppose this idea.
What do you think about required payment of let's say 100 USD when creating a new wikipedia account in order to decrease the number of people having multiple accounts? This money could be given back after performing 100 edits. Of course anonymous updates would be forbidden.
This is a two-part question. First, I oppose the idea of requiring new editors to put down a deposit (even if refundable) in order to edit. And second, although I personally wish everyone editing Wikipedia would use an account, the community has never supported the idea of prohibiting anonymous editing, and even if I were a dictator here, I would not impose such a requirement.
What is your view on Israel? Should the Jews control the entire Israel territory including all the Palestinian territory or excluding the Palestinian territory or should all this land be controlled by Arabs?
This is, IMO, not relevant to the ArbCom election, so I decline to answer it here.
What is the most serious threat to human existence in the nearest century in your opinion?
This is, IMO, not relevant to the ArbCom election, so I decline to answer it here.
In your opinion, what actions should we take to stop the climate change? Or maybe we should do nothing?
This is, IMO, not relevant to the ArbCom election, so I decline to answer it here.
What's your religion? If you believe in God, how important is he for you? If you believe in God, do you believe literally in everything what's written in the Bible/ Quran or other religious book? If you're an atheist, which book is the best source of wisdom for you?
This is, IMO, not relevant to the ArbCom election, so I decline to answer it here.
Which of the following sexual behaviors are normal in your opinion: sex before marriage, anal sex, oral sex, homosexuality, polygamy, zoophilia, necrophilia, incest, rape, pedophilia?
This is, IMO, not relevant to the ArbCom election, so I decline to answer it here.
Do you think any animals might be more intelligent than the humans?
This is, IMO, not relevant to the ArbCom election, so I decline to answer it here.

Questions from Robert McClenon[edit]

Some of the most important decisions by arbitrators are whether to accept or decline cases. What principles will you follow on voting on whether to accept cases that may be within the scope of arbitration, as opposed to declining the cases and leaving them for the community?
Perhaps the most important factor, in my view, is whether a case involves problems that could be decided by ArbCom (basically, conduct issues), or if it's primarily a matter of an entrenched content dispute (which ArbCom is not authorized to decide). An important second factor is how much of an effort has been made to resolve, or at least focus, the point(s) at issue through the community's established dispute resolution mechanisms.
Do you think that the initial T&S action in banning Fram was a valid exercise of responsibility by Trust and Safety, a completely unjustified overreach by T&S, or something in between, such as an over-reaction by T&S to an existing weakness in the English Wikipedia's sanctions regime?
Since I am not privy to the confidential information involved in the Fram case, I do not believe I can competently discuss the appropriateness of the T&S action at this time, and so I must decline to answer this question.
In recent years the ArbCom has almost always been significantly late in issuing proposed decisions. The current PIA4 case is an example. Do you propose any action to reduce these delays, such as either shortening the delay between closing of the workshop and posting of the proposed decision, or providing a longer target date?
I would encourage arbitrators to work as diligently as reasonably possible on problem cases. Assuming a case is being worked on in a timely fashion, however, I do not believe that artificially imposing shorter deadlines would be constructive.

Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards[edit]

What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?
Undisclosed paid editing is inappropriate, to say the least, and it has the potential to endanger the credibility of Wikipedia. ArbCom is the appropriate venue to deal with UPE in certain limited cases — such as when there are confidential details that cannot or should not be aired in public, or when genuine attempts to handle a UPE situation via the community's established procedures do not work, or when an admin is engaging in UPE activity. In general, however, UPE problems should be handled by the community (not by ArbCom) whenever possible.

Question from Dash77[edit]

I assume that, although you are unrelated to Jimmy Wales, you are Rich Wales of dual citizenship fame. That's a topic I've occasionally written about on Wikipedia.Dash77 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct.