Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from DoggySoup[edit]

2. Should people who have undergone frequent and/or serious disciplinary action such as desysopping or numerous blocks be allowed to apply for bureaucratic placements in Wikipedia?

2. You have significant support from both Wikipedia-critical and rather unpleasant groups related to wikipedia. Why should people vote for someone who has this sort of support?

2. Should ArbCom have more or less power in dealing with administration?

Question from Smallbones[edit]

2. Wikipedia is starting to have a reputation for bullying and misogyny, see, e.g the recent article in The Atlantic by Emma Paling, "Wikipedia's Hostility to Women”.
   Are you willing to take serious steps to stop bullying of editors on Wikipedia? especially bullying directed toward women editors? Is this one of your top 2 priorities? What would you consider to be a more important priority than stopping the bullying? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I read the article, thank you, and it is not a fair account. Regardless, misogyny is a problem in most parts of our societies and particularly on the internet. It is not the only one: racism, antisemitism, etc. are equally serious problems. Wikipedia is clearly not a safe zone, though it's a much better place than some other places on the Internet. My top priority is to learn how ArbCom really works and to try to make it more transparent, to see if I can help make it work better. As for serious steps, bullying is a blockable offense and I've handed out many an indef-block for racist, sexist, anti-gay, antisemitic, anti-Muslim edits. And I'll add that I'm not all that sure what the term "bullying" adds: we have "harassment" and a policy to go with it. I've been harassed related to at least three Wikipedia issues, and I know what it feels like, and I don't wish that on anyone. I'm not going to say "I've been bullied" since that is not a serious enough term for what people do, in my opinion. No one took my lunch money; what they did is much more serious.

Question from LynnWysong[edit]

2. Please reference this diff. Do you have any misgivings about making this statement and encouraging the discourse that went on in this thread? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   No. Please scroll to the opening statement/personal attack by the editor who started the section. Ha, I see now that I said the same thing back then, and if I encouraged discourse, it was RO's discourse. If this had been an ANI thread or an ArbCom-sanctioned document I would have used different language, but my talk page is a happy place, much more for kissing than for anything else.

4. Follow up question: Maybe RO might have crafted her words: "enablers like you" better, say like, "you are enabling Eric Corbett" making it a judgement on your behavior rather than a label, but someone in a position of authority should be able to get past a faux pas like that and focus on the underlying message. So, with that in mind, do you stand by your characterization of what many might consider to be "valid criticism" as a "personal attack?" And, even if the criticism was unwarranted, didn't it still warrant a civil reply that would not have been seen as an invite to the "peanut gallery" to start chiming in?

   LynnWysong, I don't really believe in that semantic change, though as an admin I have to accept that grudgingly, sometimes. If RO wanted to have a real conversation, we could have had it. But RO was never very good at making overtures; their first conversation on my talk page started "Exactly how many FAs does it take before I can start telling people they are filthy and repulsive?". So for me to explain my thinking, which is already difficult since it involved a difficult case, to someone who just seemed to be baiting me, no, I don't have time for that. If you or anyone else want to have that conversation, I will be happy to have it, but not if it starts with personal attacks (on me and the editor who was the topic of discussion) and unproven assumptions, not in that way. In fact, this is all old news: we could have had that conversation over a half a year ago.

question from Beeblebrox[edit]

2. This is a follow-up tp the above question: Don't you think that's a little old-fashioned? I mean, c'mon man. All the movies and TV shows these days show everyone just tearing each others clothes off and going for it. Foreplay is apprently dead. Given your outdated stance, would you recuse yourself as an arb should foreplay or kissing issues come before the committee?

   You're just trolling, Beeblebrox. Yes, in some ways I am old-fashioned, but there are many things I don't approve of for which I won't block, as you'll see currently on my talk page (section "verb: bitch").

Questions from Antony–22[edit]

2. In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it?

   Free speech isn't free, and there's two "free speeches" here. One is the ability to say anything one wants, the other is to communicate in an atmosphere without harassment--that's a different kind of freedom. For editors to speak their mind freely in a collaborative environment we need to curtail speech to some extent. That extent is civility, and given that editors on the English Wikipedia use many different Englishes, it is sometimes difficult to determine when freely spoken speech is uncivil.

4. It's been pointed out that incivility and harassment are not precisely the same thing. What is the line between incivility and harassment? How much does incivility, when it doesn't cross the line into harassment, affect our ability to retain editors, including but not limited to its effects on the gender gap?

   There is no doubt that persistent incivility wears editors and administrators out: believe me, I know. Given the complexity of this environment, which I tried to suggest above, there's no easy solution there; civility blocks are the last resort. Harassment is a different matter and ought to be treated seriously. In the end, I believe the WMF ought to be more active than it is in combating harassment--much of the real serious harassment takes place off-wiki.

6. Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press lately. Do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under such scrutiny, to reduce the factual inaccuracies that sometimes creep into these articles? For example, do you think that releasing statements, such as been done once on a previous case, should be considered in the future? If so, how could they be made more effective?

   I think that's an excellent thing to do. ArbCom is supposed to be the highest court, the highest authority--it should have a PR agent. The document you linked, well, it's not the clearest piece of writing ever; it's not written in newspaper style, and perhaps we should consider our audience more.

8. This question is optional, since candidates don't necessarily like to talk about current cases. But imagine that you are a current member of the Arbcom and you are delegated the task of writing a succinct, neutral primer for the press, of no more than a few paragraphs, on the circumstances leading to the current case Arbitration enforcement 2. Write that primer below. Do not cover or express an opinion on the proposed or actual decision, but concentrate on how you would help a reporter understand what happened before the case was filed.

   No, this is a current case, one in which every adjective and every noun counts, and drafting it before a solution is reached is not a good idea.

10. One last question. Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural, even transgressive nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals from academic and cultural institutions. This is perhaps causing some angst that the community and its interactions may become "professionalized" to the exclusion of established editors. Do you feel this fear is warranted? How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?

    Hmm no, not really, though such an influx will certainly change the culture a bit. Look, I don't automatically agree with your first sentence (well, the one after "one last question"), because "knowledge" there is unspecified. Wikipedia gives access to a new and newly organized repository of knowledge, and gives know-it-alls like you and me a way to contribute to it. What Wikipedia offers in part is new knowledge--and you have to admit, our coverage of anime, monster trucks, k-pop, manga, rassling moves, and Responses to World Events is much better than what any of the old, traditional repositories of knowledge had to offer. So I don't know if it's countercultural or transgressive, though it certainly is new.

    I welcome more professional contributions since it makes us look good, it's as simple as that. We would be crazy to turn down editors who have expertise, who have access to the full-custom databases, who can turn classes of students into armies of article writers. As for conduct, well, apparently we're not doing so good, or at least so I'm told, so those new editors, one would assume, couldn't make us worse.

    Seriously, if those new professionals and academics were to come in here, of course that might change the culture--it might make for more conversations about content and less about other stuff. But mind you, if Wikipedia editors are hip and countercultural, we still have no reason to assume that academics aren't. Most of my colleagues are pretty hip--they're into Transatlantic literature and ecology and Twitter as an educational method and Open Source publishing and bringing Hispanic literature into the Early American syllabus, and I'm at a tiny school. Besides, I haven't really seen many problems that professionals and academics have with the existing culture (I know quite a lot of them; there's more than you might think), alarming sounds to the contrary notwithstanding. The biggest culture difference between this encyclopedia and the normal workings of academia, as far as I'm concerned is the writing: encyclopedic vs. argumentative. Being an academic and hearing you can't do OR here on a topic you know so well and have studied for years is like...like...well, like a really weird thing. So, to end this rather long expose, this is a win-win situation. Except maybe for monster trucks and rassling and all those other totally white and geeky US things that so dominate Wikipedia.

Question from User:Anthonyhcole[edit]

2. Just following on from the above #Question from LynnWysong: The OP in that linked conversation was suggesting you try a different approach in how you deal with User:Eric Corbett. You were offended by her characterising you as one of Corbett's enablers, and said, "MastCell, I don't really know Matisse, but I do know that this person [the OP] is not here to contribute to this encyclopedia. They're just fucking around, and I like to kiss before I get fucked. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)" This was followed by, "Drmies, perhaps you'd be willing to settle for a reach around? — Ched :  ? 09:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)" and "I hope he brought some Vaseline. He might want to ride the zebra. Run Forest Run! He He He!!! Sorry I could not resist, it reminds me of trying to argue with my sisters when they were teenagers. Pointless 208.54.38.130 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)" which stayed there until the page was archived the next day. (Permalink)[reply]

   So, I'm trying to encourage academics to engage with Wikipedia. If you suspect one of the academics I persuade to edit of being a sock, or if you take offence at something she says, is there any chance you'll treat her to a similar display of frat-boy sexualised derision? I think I can infer your answer from your answer to Lynn (basically, she had it coming because she had offended you), but I'd appreciate it if you could spell it out.

   Anthony, please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not a frat boy, and "she had it coming" when that which you infer she had coming wasn't written by me isn't exactly fair. Ched's "reach around", I don't find that very funny; the IP's comment is revolting, and I wonder if I noticed it before--I don't have a clue, for instance, what that zebra joke is about (please don't everyone start explaining it). Looking at it now I am really not sure why I didn't remove it.

   So. You're asking me if I would respond like someone else did to a suspicion made by yet another editor; the answer is no, of course not. I'll be happy to add that I've worked with many an academic on this site.

   I apologise. Above, it seems so much like you're justifying "They're just fucking around, and I like to kiss before I get fucked" by pointing to her "personal attack" (Accusing you of being one of Corbett's enablers). But now it's clear you see no need to justify that comment at all. The only blameworthy comments in that thread were made by others - Ched's wasn't funny enough, apparently, and only the IP's comment was revolting. Thanks for clarifying. Would you consider running your "They're just fucking around, and I like to kiss before I get fucked" by your feminist and linguist friends, and seeing what they think about its appropriateness in a mixed collaborative working environment, what kind of signal it sends? I'm concerned you're taking your lead about appropriate address from Hollywood gangster movies (from memory the only people present when DeCaprio said those words were male gangsters?), and you might possibly benefit from more expert input. That's a serious question and this is a very serious issue.

   Another couple of questions: Is there a gender gap on Wikipedia, and, if so, does the aggressive, often insulting, often sexualised discourse here contribute to it? Thanks for your patience. I know I'm being blunt but I hope you appreciate where I'm coming from, and agree this at least needs airing.

• Anthony, I'm not going to apologize for that word choice, which came in response to someone needling and needling me on my talk page, in a set of comments loaded with false assumptions and accusations. My colleagues would no doubt say that one can't talk like that in class; fortunately, my talk page is not class. And I don't subscribe to the notion that there is so much "sexualized" discourse here. Aggressive, sometimes insulting, yes, there's plenty of that, we see that even on ArbCom pages. BTW, I don't know what movie you are referring to, though DiCaprio is one of my secret crushes; I have no doubt that I learned the phrase from one of my colleagues, most likely a tenured one. I'm an academic, and we get fucked on a regular basis. Don't tell my boss I said that.

  Finally, of course there is a gender gap, in content as well as in the community of editors. I refuse to accept, however, that its main cause is some British guy using a bad word or some IP making a tasteless remark on my talk page. (I know a lot of IPs; I still don't know who this one is.) If I had to guess, I would say that the Internet's whitemalegeekness is more to blame than our supposed culture. I'm not a member of many online communities, and of all the ones I know, Wikipedia is the friendliest and open one, even given its gender disparity. But in my daily editing I run into so many female and transgender editors that I'm sometimes surprised when I see the stats; my personal experience on Wikipedia is pleasantly mixed. But I think it's significant that I hear so few complaints about racial diversity: Wikipedia is more overwhelmingly white than it is overwhelmingly male, at least in my experience. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep. She's infuriating. I confess to having called her an idiot in the past, which I now genuinely regret, and I was just a bystander. Still, please consider running that language by your friends. You have nothing to lose from the experience. For what it's worth, you've got my vote. Thanks again for your patience here, and thank you also for the enormous amount of good you do for this project we all so love. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. What, if any, formal training have you had in gender discrimination and gender in the work place?

   The usual training from HR etc. we get in academia, though much of that focuses on harassment and legal matters, rather than on gender and transgender identity and communities. Such training, as you may know, typically is done so the employer can say they did it; it does little to improve the community.

   So much of my experience is from real life, from working in an environment that's quite diverse in terms of gender and sexual orientation, from working with LGBT students, and from studying and teaching women's literature. And, of course, from raising three kids in as exciting and gender-neutral a way as I can manage. Let me add, by the way, that anyone is welcome to sign up for my class on Women in Medieval Literature, next semester, where we will study misogyny from biblical roots to the church fathers and popular poetry, and arguments against misogyny made by churchmen as well as by writers such as Christine de Pizan. We'll also deal with the writings by female mystics along the way--the women long put down as just crazy womenfolk, who have fortunately been reclaimed for us by feminist scholars. If you can't make the class, at least read the basic anthology for the class, Blamires, Alcuin (1992). Woman Defamed and Woman Defended. Oxford: Oxford UP. ISBN 9780198710394.

Questions from Collect[edit]

2. Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?

   No, I don't feel that way at all. I haven't always followed every ArbCom case very well, but I remember once or twice being surprised that certain sanctions were meted out, and others not. Personally, I usually hope that ArbCom cases end without bans and blocks.

4. If an administrator states (hypothetically) "You will vote however you like, and I am frankly not interested in changing your mind, but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me. At the moment, you are not", would that administrator be considered "involved" or "impartial" in any way with the editor in whose talk space he made such an edit?

   Wait. So this is a talk page comment, an admin responding to an editor's vote in what, an RfC or an RfA? If the editor indeed appeared to be dishonest, I guess that could be a fair comment, though not likely a productive one. I do think honesty is a good quality. If I were that admin, I would not take administrative action against that editor, though that depends on the circumstances. Without more context, I can't judge. Collect, you and I go way back, and I think you know that if someone were to talk to me in that way, I can handle it, and I would not think that the admin was predisposed against me. The ones who are out to get you are usually not so explicit: they avoid confrontation or at the most try to bait you.

2. Are arbitators under any reasonable obligation to afford editors who are out of the country on a trip, or have other substantial reasons for absence from a case, any delays in considering cases concerning them? If such a person is given only 1000 words to rebut 1000 words from each of five or more "evidence providers", is that a reasonable limit to place on the defendant, or ought the limit be raised to allow rebuttal of each such section?

   I think that in principle ArbCom should allow a reasonable defense in terms of time and word limit, and that defending oneself may require more words than attacking someone. I also think that (ahem) sometimes good editing can help a lot. But yeah, in principle, if someone is up on the ArbCom stage they should be afforded some liberties, and I know that the committee has granted extensions and expansions. I think that's good practice: one size does not fit all cases.

Questions from Spartaz[edit]

2. Given your well known advocacy against attempts to enforce our civility policy, can you explain what your stance will be on such matters should you be elected. In particular, do you intend to recuse from such matters or are you going to actively advocate on behalf of content producers with potty mouths?

   I deny the premise of your question. If you can't name the elephant in the room (sorry Eric--it's just a metaphor) then we don't have to talk about him. In the meantime, you are welcome to count up all the blocks I made over the years for racist, sexist, anti-gay, antisemitic, anti-Muslim edits.

   If someone were to ask me if I thought I could fairly judge an editor whom I have known for a long time, I think the answer is yes, and if I decide that I can't, I'll recuse. Of course I assume that the editor's detractors would also think very carefully about their ability to judge objectively. But surely ArbCom is about more than one's opinion on one particular issue.

Question from Rcsprinter123[edit]

2. In your own words, please explain the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and why its existence is necessary. And what, if any, changes or reforms would you support regarding the structuring and processes of Wikipedia's arbitration system?

   I'll be brief: I do believe a "highest authority" is necessary, to help solve the problems that can't be solved by the peers at AN, ANI, Dispute Resolution, etc--if only because ArbCom gets paid (ha!) to delve much deeper into matters than the average editor would. So I'm not against the system per se. What could be improved is the transparency and expediency, absolutely. But I think we also bring that on ourselves by too-frequently kicking the can down the road (sorry for repeating myself, and let me add that I don't think I ever kicked a real can) and saying "let ArbCom deal with this since we can't".

Question from Hafspajen[edit]

2. How many laguages do you speak? Thank you for you answer.

   Occasionally I have a student who doesn't realize that I'm a furriner living in the US, and I'm pleased enough with that. My Southern drawl fools no one, and it's been so long since I spoke Swedish that I'm not going to embarrass myself here. Right now, I feel sad that I forgot so much of the French I used to speak fluently, but my love and admiration for Paris, the second-most beautiful city in the world, is not lessened thereby.

• That would be: Dutch; English; French; German and Swedish then? I always felt an arbitrator must speak at least five or four languages. The more languages one knows, the more - the better it is. This is a heavy international project. See List of polyglots. Hafspajen (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Yash![edit]

2. In the past couple of years, the ArbCom has closed various cases, passed motions, and such. Is/Are there any outcome/s that you disagree with? If yes, which? And, what result/s would you have rather preferred? Yash! 12:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmm. I should have followed Gamergate more closely, so I could have given a truly exciting answer. I can tell you that I've been surprised a few times by some cases, in part because being part of a case opens up everything. Collect's case was a surprise to me, as was the gun case, in which some unexpectedly dirty laundry was aired.

   What I found most baffling, though, was the emergency desysop of Malik Shabazz, that's no secret. Malik says one wrong thing and makes one wrong administrative action, after suffering some severely racist baiting, and the bit is yanked. What should have happened? Conversation. That's all. I think we underestimate what it means for someone to be desysopped: it's a matter of some serious personal embarrassment, not to be taken lightly, and in the recent "emergency" desysops, the arbs should have really spent more time asking themselves if the admin in question was likely to repeat the offending administrative action. It's like blocking: if someone is not likely to repeat an offending edit, a block is punitive. But we hastily took his bit, and no one should have expected Malik to swallow his pride after we basically suggested to him that the name he was called was OK.

Questions from Gerda Arendt[edit]

Thank you for stepping forward!

2. Arbitration findings and the wishes of principal editors govern the use of infoboxes in articles. If you want to win my "neutral" please say how you would close the discussion at Talk:Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?

    Done (I wanted to beat you to it--sorry I couldn't close it your way.)

4. An editor has been blocked for a month in the name of arbitration enforcement for having said that he creates half of his featured content with women. I find it kafkaesque and remember the opening of The Metamorphosis for an analogy. If you want to win my "support", please - on top of #1 - suggest improvements to get from arbitration enforcement ("not a fun place") to arbitration supervision, where such a thing would not happen. I offered some thoughts, wishing to see Floquenbeam's "no foul, play on" more often, or Yunshui's "The edit was unproblematic and actually made Wikipedia better."

   I have always maintained that blocks and other punishments should be applied judiciously, that the law is only written to promote a positive spirit in our work place. What we had here was, many an editor agreed, a technical violation of a topic ban. The editor was also baited into commenting, and when he did respond, he did so in a measured way--I don't think anyone found fault with the comment itself.

   I'm not sure what you mean with "arbitration supervision", but I think what you suggest with "enforcement", and reject, is a more or less automatic block for any violation of any kind. I don't think ArbCom should be a good reason for a block. Anyway, in this kind of situation I always think one should talk first and maybe block later--if that block in any way helps anything. I'm probably rephrasing what Floq has said many times before in many situations.

   This particular case was about one particular editor, but we need to remember that in general such ArbCom-sanctioned blocks are usually imposed on longtime editors, many of whom have contributed greatly to the project. Thus, to let them be done by one admin, when there can be considerable disagreement over the justice, the usefulness, and the severity of the block in a usually high-pressure environment, is...well, a lot to ask of the admin, and a lot to accept for the editor. I would like us to talk first and, maybe, discuss them either on AN or among the Arbs. In most cases there really isn't a rush, I think, to block.

Question from Anythingyouwant[edit]

2. If and when Arbcom behaves in a reprehensible or unjust manner, will you always say so publicly, or will you instead maybe not?Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I wish I could answer your question as honestly as you asked it. I think you know that I typically speak my mind, but I've noticed, in the last few years as an admin, that I've been speaking a bit differently. In part it's because I'm practicing Bradspeak, in part it's because an admin's words are (as you can tell) read by more than a few and frequently twisted. In addition, frequently I find myself mediating, and thus it becomes imperative to try and not to insult both sides.

   I don't know, Anythingyouwant. Of course my lips are as sealed as they ought to be on sensitive matters. I have no doubt I'll be biting my tongue more than once, and I am equally sure that I will speak my mind as much as I think is appropriate. But ArbCom acting reprehensibly or unjustly, that's precisely what I am hoping to prevent.

Questions from Guerillero[edit]

Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. Many of these questions are sourced from actual cases, discussions, and problems over the past year. Enjoy!

• You're welcome, Guerrillero. You should know--and thank you for your service. Drmies (talk)

Subcommittees[edit]

2. The Audit Subcommittee was created in 2009 to investigate improper tool usage of our Check Users and Oversighters. Currently, neither the community nor the committee can decide how to handle it. There have been calls to completely disband the subcommittee, transfer its role to the functionaries en banc, and extend it for another year. The current auditors terms expired on 1 October, 2015 and they have been continuing in their roles without formal authorization. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?

   Guerillero, this is new subject matter for me. It's a bit of an odd thing to have a group that automatically gets CU (the most powerful and invasive tool we have) monitor and judge the abuse of CU. ArbCom frequently needs CU (well, I suppose--I've never been on ArbCom), but FUNC is still closely related to ArbCom, of course. In general, it seems to me that the most recently elected ArbCom has the most legitimate claim to represent the community and is thus best placed to perform oversight. At the same time, many processes benefit from having external review as well. You know, like an ombudsman. Oops, failed proposal. For now, I look at mandates as not just a matter of law and expiration date and don't think a committee needs to be automatically dissolved just because a date has passed.

   One of the things we don't know ("we" meaning not Arbs) is how many of such complaints are filed, how much if any abuse has happened, etc. Another thing that I don't know is how such complaints relate to whatever the meta:Ombudsman commission receives. Can you tell I like the ombudsman idea?

   Update: having read Sarah/SV's suggestions for ArbCom reform, I must say I'm leaning toward Arbs not automatically getting the CU tool. Personally I don't have much interest in it (or technical skills for it, maybe) and I am really not sure whether Arbs need it for the things they do. I'm in a state of flux here, not having realized before Arbs get CU automatically, and my thinking on this is not yet done.

4. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee exists to hear appeals of community bans and long-term blocks. There have been moves to divest this role from the committee. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?

   Let me give you the short answer right now, since I got to get dinner going. I believe in second chances, and third, and fourth, and BASC ought to be the place for it, far from the madding crowd of AN and ANI. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, there isn't much transparency, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who is interested in how banned and blocked editors fare--I inquired more than once about a banned editor or two. Personally I don't care whether it's a sub committee of ArbCom or an elected group of editors; it just happens that in ArbCom we have a group of community-approved Big Shots. Kidding aside, I understand there may be a lot of personal and sensitive information that can't be easily shared, but that doesn't mean nothing can be shared. What's more, I think it is likely that some of our banned former editors deserve a(nother) fair hearing and I am interested in giving them that. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current disputes and cases[edit]

2. What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?

   Well, a total ban means someone is just totally useless for our project (but not a vandal, for instance). A topic ban means someone can't edit objectively in one particular area. By the time it gets to ArbCom, you're usually talking about editors who are quite ensconced in one topic but, I am happy to say, that doesn't always mean that a topic ban amounts to a total ban; we saw that in the recent gun case.

   In short, to ban someone from the project, that takes a lot of disruption, and it's a very unpleasant thing, a last resort. When it is done, it is to be done deliberately and thoughtfully, and that's the kind of thing that ArbCom should take its time for; as far as I can tell, they have not taken those big decisions lightly. Now, letting banned editors back in, that's another matter, and typically the viewing audience is not privy to that process, and it's something I want to learn more about and maybe tweak.

4. Nearly every case involves violations of the civility policy in some way. At one time, a remedy call a "Civility Parole" existed but it fell out of vogue. Today, the only tools in the current Arbitrator's toolboxes to deal with civility issues are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. What new and creative ways would you bring to the table to solve this problem?

   If I had new and creative stuff I'd be strutting it all day long, and it's a tricky issue. If you block someone for a civility violation you get yelled at for being a stick in the mud, if you don't, well, you're an enabler who lets people chase editors off the project.

   We have many worlds and Englishes and societies and cultures here on Wikipedia: we can't have one particular population set the standards for all. The tools you indicate are the admin's tools as well; ArbCom does the same thing, just by committee. Now, you didn't list one of the most important tools: conversation, the tool we should try first. Of course, by the time it gets to ArbCom we've passed a couple of stations already, and thus options are limited.

   The best thing I think any committee can do is be as explicit as possible about what it expects from community members, without providing a list of words or expressions that are not to be used. But ArbCom also needs to make clear that it understands that not every violation is worthy of a block. For instance, we typically give latitude to blocked editors to "vent" on their own talk page, and we should continue to do so; we should also clearly contextualize violations by investigating whether someone was baited or not, for instance. Most of us do that, but it would be helpful if ArbCom, when it hands out a civility warning of sorts, more explicitly require that of administrators. Have you talked with the editor? Is a block the best solution? Are you sure they haven't stopped badmouthing someone already, making a block punitive? This is all common sense, as far as I am concerned. And while instances of incivility are not good, and patters are very discouraging, I think poor blocks are worse.

6. Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?

   There is certainly a perception that it exists. Look, I'm not so familiar with the Wifione case, but what I heard is pretty damning. Of course admins should be held to a higher standard, though if I say that too loud someone is going to block me.

   With admins there's a dual problem, as the current (or not current anymore) Neelix case indicates: block, desysop, or both? I advocated a desysop since I think that their behavior was totally unbecoming of an admin--but "unbecoming of an admin", which for me included that I couldn't trust someone not to be a sexist, does not equate to "unbecoming of an editor" (an editor's sexist judgment can not lead to a bad block, for instance, or prevent a good block). In other words, the behavior I thought should lead to a desysop was not the kind of behavior that should lead to a ban. Many disagreed, and many of those comments are perfectly understandable. All I can say is that Neelix's admin status was not a factor in my decision not to block, and you can read what I said on his talk page here and on Commons. I have to say though that I am trying to keep a straight face since every time I look at my deletion log, with hundreds of totally offensive redirects, the Old Adam in me rises and I'm tempted to throw that blockhammer.

   In the case you mention, Wifione was sitebanned indefinitely, so the process worked, since that was the right thing to do. The only thing that bothers me is that (as in the Neelix case!) a self-requested desysop seems to prevent ArbCom from yanking it anyway. I think desysopping after an admin has given up has symbolic value, and is not a redundant redundancy, pace DeltaQuad.

8. Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?

   In general, yes, but you have to understand that I was a big fan of RfC/U. That is, admonishments and warnings, offered as an advice on how to avoid future mishaps, can be a helpful way to stave off the issuing of blocks and bans.

Insider Baseball[edit]

2. Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?

   Well, I suppose it's better than everyone editing in their little sandboxes, and it seems to be the one place that's not as formal as the others. In all honesty, I don't think I've ever made a Workshop edit and if I have it may have been in error. I find the whole setup rather confusing.

Question from RGloucester[edit]

2. As I'm sure you are aware, there is much talk of reform of the Committee in this election, and there has been in previous elections. It is very rare for anything to come of this talk. There is a certain intransigence that is inherent in this body, which leads to the like of the electronic cigarettes case, which has been open since August without an appropriate resolution. This intransigence is a curse on the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. One of the main problems stems from a failure amongst Committee members, many whom claim to have a drive for reform, to work together in a collaborative manner. If there is such collaboration, the community sees no evidence of it in public spaces. As such, I have a few questions. Firstly, do you agree with the principle of bringing more of the arbitration process into the public eye? If so, do you have any proposals as such? Secondly, if you are elected, what will you do to ensure that intransigence does not once again entrench itself within the Committee? Will you act to collaborate with your fellow Committee members, so that reform of the arbitration process can occur? Thirdly, how do you feel about removing the arcane pseudo-legalist language that is currently present in both the actions of the Committee and the regulations of the arbitration process? I am much obliged for your candidacy, and await your response. RGloucester — ☎ 16:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   RGloucester, it's nice to see you editing again. I thought of you the other day--one of my students is writing a paper on, you guessed it, singular they. :)

   Your questions are much better than any answer I can give. Yes, there is intransigence. This e-cig case, I have never looked at it--occasionally one hears about it, and every time I think a. is that still going on b. why? and c. what's the problem?

   I have often felt that the higher-ups, by which I mean ArbCom as well as for instance the developers and the WMF don't do a lot to keep us peons in the loop. I am just not smart enough to figure out a better way (and I admit I do not read the Signpost regularly), and I am so much unaware of the inner workings of ArbCom that I don't rightly know what kind of information exists in which channels at which stage in the process. But I agree something should be done in the way of PR--meaning "press release" more than "public relations", I guess.

   I'm all for collaboration and I'm all for clearing any backlogs, though I cannot promise you what I will do in a case which I really know nothing about. Believe me, though, I am a Calvinist when it comes to any backlogs, except that one on my own desk: I think my id is rebelling.

   Finally, the language--yes. I'm a big fan of Bradspeak, but what we read all too often is neither Bradspeak nor English; frequently we seem to be caught in a legalistic format which dictates that kind of writing. As an English teacher, I am not in favor of it.

Question from Biblioworm[edit]

2. Do you have any experience in successfully resolving disputes, either on-wiki or off-wiki?

   Ha, more on-wiki than off-wiki, I think. Well, I've been pretty active closing RfCs, sometimes highly polarized ones, and I think I did alright--that is, I think I have reached fair conclusions that reflect both sides. BTW, I often preach that RfC is the best way to solve content disputes and thus stave off much enmity, so closing an RfC properly, in a way that does not leave too many parties with a bad taste in their mouths, is important.

   My talk page, once you look past all the naughty words, shows that I have tried on a number of occasions to mediate and bring editors together, and I wish I were better at it than I am. I get asked frequently to help figure those things out--I suppose I get asked because editors think that I can help, but I just don't know if they're right. But I try.

Question from Mark Arsten[edit]

2. Do you think you will enjoy being a member of Arbcom? You're an excellent candidate, of course, but I worry that you won't be able to tolerate the committee for a whole term.

   Thanks Mark--but I wonder if they'll tolerate me. I do look forward to wielding the Utmost Awesome Power. Really, I don't know, but I don't usually back out of something I got into. The committee is full of people who have devoted significant time and effort to a project I also believe in, and that matters greatly. I do wonder if Ealdgyth has a bet running on my content contributions becoming even more rare. I hope I can contribute something, though it's hard for me right now to see what that might be and I don't want to sound too cocky, like I'ma gonna change this and that.

===Question from Pldx1===

2. Dear candidate. As you probably have noted, an user describing himself as a Grammar Badguy asked the question he asked to the 11 first nominated candidates. In my opinion, the way each candidate answered this question is an important criteria of choice. Since you were not one of the 11, I think it could be fair to give you an occasion to comment. Pldx1 (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

   No more useful (see below). Pldx1 (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Worm That Turned[edit]

2. Hi, I'm Dave, I was on Arbcom between 2013 and 2014. I can tell you now that being an arbitrator is tough - you become a target. Comments you make will be taken out of context, your motives and abilities will be insulted, you may be threatened or harassed. Have you thought much about the "dark side" of being an arbitrator? How have you prepared for this?

   Hi Dave. First of all, thank you for your service. (Cue anthem. Planes flying over. Salute.) Yeah, all of that is happening already, not for the first time. I don't know if I'm ready for this; I'm going to do what I've been doing all along, and that is try to not pay attention to it. I don't read the two other sites (though sometimes someone sends me a link--bleh), and I don't go browsing around for things I don't want to read. I know that Arbs will sometimes have to look at things I wouldn't normally look at; well, that's part of the job and I'll do what needs to be done. I have plenty of detractors, I think, but in my many years on this site I've also made some friends and sometimes they stick up for me, which I really, really appreciate.

   I'll do the best I can do, which also means communicating as clearly as possible, in understandable English--ArbCom as a whole needs to do this too, of course. H8ers are always gonna h8, and I can't win those for me, and I'll try to look the other way when they h8ing on me.

   I'm chronically unassuming - I never know who actually has any idea who I am. So I drafted a pretty standard question - hope I didn't come across as bragging! Anyway, thanks for your statement, I appreciate it. I wish you the best of luck. Worm^TT(talk) 20:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Beyond My Ken[edit]

2. You hang out with a pretty multifarious crowd which includes some disreputable typesL very reputable people. What have you got to say for yourself?

   You are referring, no doubt, to the hipsters and scalawags that frequent my talk page looking for a fight. Well, it's hard to please everyone, BMK, but it's a good relationship if you can disagree with someone, and still get along. I think I have that with a lot of people, and for those who think that I use strong language, I'm really toning it down on-wiki. Of course I can't win them all.

   Over the years I've worked with a great many editors from all over the world, some of whom I strongly disagree with politically, for instance, or artistically. I've worked with gun nuts, with Republicans, with Yankees, with Germans--not a given for a pacifist left-wing Southern Dutchman. What we all share, I hope, is a desire to make this beautiful project better, and that's really what matters. So, apparently I can get along with a lot of different people, which is pretty cool, and there's a lot of cool people here that are fun to talk to, and the more we talk the less we fight.

Question from Crystallizedcarbon[edit]

2. Hello, I think you are a very good candidate, in my humble opinion you have the experience, the commitment and the skills needed, I often find your useful contributions to the project while patrolling. You invest a lot of time and make a large amount of contributions every day. I would like to know how much time would you like to dedicate to this important new task if you are elected. Best of lucks.

   Thanks for your kind words, and right back at you: I see lots of people making lots of good edits when I look through Recent changes. Since I became an admin my article space edits have gone down, and I think this may get worse if I get elected. If I do get in I want to take it seriously, and time will have to come from somewhere--but I expect that I'll do what many others do as well: cut down on admin work. On the bright side, Yngvadottir has promised to write every article I want written and can't get to; she has promised to learn Dutch for the purpose as well.

Questions from GrammarFascist[edit]

2. Please divulge as much of your demographic information as you are comfortable making public. Specifically: your gender, including whether you are cis, trans or other; your sexual orientation; your race and/or ethnicity; where you live (feel free to specify you live in Triesenberg if you want, but a country or continent will do just fine — even just "Southern Hemisphere" or "Western Hemisphere" is helpful); whether you have any condition considered a disability (even if you're not so disabled you're unable to work) including deafness, physical disabilities, developmental disabilities and mental illnesses, again being only as specific as you wish; and what social class you belong to (e.g. working class, middle class, etc.). ¶ If you prefer not to answer any or all of those categories, I won't count it against you. My intention in asking for this information is not to out anyone or try to force affirmative action. However, when deciding between two otherwise equally qualified candidates, I would prefer to be able to vote for more diversity on ArbCom rather than less.

   I'm older than you, I think, and older than I ever thought I'd be. My vision isn't as good as it was a few years ago, which really sucks. I have a three-year old son who, tonight, was all dolled up in a pink princess dress and carried a pink ukelele--he looked great in it, dancing Swan Lake. I'm a decent cook, and I do a lot of laundry around here, and all the dishes. I am still able to work, but since I'm a college professor, it's "work", not work. My lower back hurts like hell. I am pretty happily married. I drive a Toyota Prius. I'm a big fan of Alabama football. I speak Dutch fluently but I usually dream in American English. My mom was a typist/secretary who worked her way up; I am a typist/secretary who worked their way up.

2. Please list at least one pro and one con of having non-administrators serve on ArbCom.

   A con is that "regular" editors haven't been vetted in the way admins are--but then again, the case of Pastor Theo proves that RfA vetting doesn't always mean a lot. Admins have, I believe, certain vested interests; perhaps non-admins offer a fresh perspective and are less bound in their decision making by habit and social circumstances. I welcome non-admins partaking in this election: the more, the merrier.

Thanks for responding, Drmies. (Your child sounds adorable and well-parented.) —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 01:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schijn bedriegt, dear GrammarFascist--and I wish I was better at the toughest job in the world. There is no proper preparation for parenthood. Thanks for the note though: my boy fills my heart with joy. You should have seen him with his Sinterklaas Legos. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Brustopher[edit]

Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on WP:OUTING. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.

2. User:Foo get's into an edit conflict on Wikipedia with User:Bar, and end up as parties to a large Arbcom case. Soon afterwards on reddit someone going by the username Bar begins posting lots of critical and disparaging threads about Foo. In these threads they claim to be Wikipedia user Bar. The Bar account on Wikipedia is older than the Bar account on reddit by several years, however the Wikipedia account had only really begun active editing a few years after the reddit account had been created. Foo notices these posts and complains on Bar's talk page and ANI. Bar responds by accusing Foo of WP:OUTING and claims that the account might not even be his. Is it OUTING to connect the Bar reddit account with the Bar Wikipedia account?

   That depends on where this supposed connection is being made (on-wiki or not) and what kind of information is given out by offering up a reddit user name. If all it is is a name, not any personal information, I don't see how it's outing--but I say this not knowing exactly what reddit is. I guess it's a site on the internet where people can say terrible things about other people with impunity, like Wikipediocracy?

4. User:Alice is a party in an Arbcom case. She is browsing the internet one day and decides to google her Wikipedia username. She finds that somebody has uploaded naked photos of another woman to a pornsite and labelled them "Alice of Wikipedia." She looks into the account that has uploaded these files and comes to the conclusion that it is owned by Wikipedia User:Bob, an editor she had clashed with heavily on wiki. In the process she also finds out his real life identity. She emails her evidence to Arbcom. Alice then decides to go to Wikipediocracy's forums, and makes a thread informing them of this porn site account. She asks them if they can guess which Wikipedia editor is behind it, and mentions that she also knows his real life identity. They independently come to the conclusion that it is User:Bob and figure out his real life identity without Alice giving the game away. Alice confirms that this is the case. Nobody in the forum finds it remotely questionable that Bob owns the account in question. In such a situation is it appropriate for Arbcom to pass a finding of fact stating "Alice posted inappropriately to an off-wiki website apparently with the objective of having the participants identify a Wikipedia editor by name." Furthermore is it appropriate for them to then use this supposed violation of WP:OUTING as part of their justification for site banning Alice?

   This is either too hypothetical or too real; I can't decide. I hope Alice is doing well: it's an unfortunate truth in a gendered society that if the same were to happen to Bob it would still be a completely different situation. Let me say this, though: we should take off-wiki harassment seriously, and one would like to know what the WMF's investment is.

Question from SNUGGUMS[edit]

2. When and how did you first become interested in running for Arbitration elections?

   Good question. Having been painted as a womanhater here and there, I wonder how interested I still am. I think the most important factor was the quick desysop of Malik Shabazz, a few months ago, which made me wonder what's going on. For years already I've been interested in the fate of indef-banned editors and what it takes for them to get back in, so to speak, curiosity also being aroused by the secrecy that sometimes surrounds these cases--most specifically, Lightbreather's and Kiefer's. ArbCom has had a steady hand in important cases (I'm thinking of gun control and Landmark, mostly), but there are some cases where I just can't be at peace with decisions because I don't know what was really going on.

Optional Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards[edit]

2. Is Terms of Use a policy  ? Do you believe that ArbCom can sanction undisclosed paid editors if there is evidence that they violated TOU ?

   I'm not a lawyer; I suppose that the soft redirect at Wikipedia:Terms of use means it's policy enough. A violation of TOU is "punishable", so I don't see why ArbCom couldn't do that. Should they? Well, there's privacy matters, frequently enough, and ArbCom does privacy, but I can't help but think that this is a matter that the WMF should take an active interest in as well. If a particular case gets complicated, high-profile, overwhelming, I'd be more than happy to kick that can down the road to San Francisco.

Question by Müdigkeit[edit]

2. How many hours per week do you plan to work on the Arbitration Committee?--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   That depends on them, I suppose. I'm an academic, so I try to do the least amount of work I can get away with. Really, that depends on ArbCom. I'm a Calvinist, so I typically do what is asked of me.

Question from User:Wikimandia[edit]

2. You mentioned the recent Neelix fiasco above and stated you felt his behavior was unbecoming of an admin but not an editor. However, many of the issues brought up in the evidence page had nothing whatsoever to do with misuse of administrative tools or even his redirect spam, including building walled gardens and violation of WP guidelines concerning advocacy in editing. Why do you not feel this is unbecoming of any editor? Neelix never acknowledged or agreed to stop any of this behavior, simply (eventually) apologized for the redirects only and then later resigned with no further comment. Do you really feel this is an acceptable outcome, and if so, why?

   First of all, blocks should not be punitive; it bears repeating. Second, the behavior was unbecoming for both admin and editor, but because admins and editors do different things the response shouldn't necessarily be the same: desysopping an admin is not the same as blocking an editor.

   I did not want to see the editor Neelix blocked immediately after their...issues came to light, and after they had stopped making these ridiculous redirects. So, yes, I felt that at that particular time a block would have been punitive--we block an editor because we want them to stop their disruption, not because it feels good, though this would have felt good. But there simply was no ongoing disruption. An investigation into their COIs, the walled gardens, etc. could have led to an indefinite block, but this was not a case where there was urgency: Neelix wasn't editing, besides a few remarks and later some token deletions, so it didn't have to be done overnight.

   Contact unbecoming of an admin points at something else altogether: from an admin we expect judgment, common sense, knowledge of our guidelines and policies, an inkling of an idea of what the community does and does not find acceptable. Clearly, all those qualities were missing in this administrator, and so I wanted them desysopped. Not necessarily overnight, but desysopped.

   My desired outcome would have been a little different than what we got. I would have wanted to see a somewhat calmer discussion on Neelix's behavior; this could have led to an indefinite block, but whether it would have or not, given the scrutiny Neelix wouldn't have had much of an opportunity to edit inappropriately. But what I wanted above all was for ArbCom to have continued the proceedings, which no doubt would have ended in ArbCom yanking the bit. In the end he got to resign, under a cloud of course, and the procedure was stopped--I think it was a good opportunity for ArbCom to make a statement on what was completely inappropriate behavior for an admin. In addition, it would have sent a strong signal that a. the redirects (I'm talking about the hundreds that I deleted) were revolting and sexist and fetishistic; b. we do not trust the judgment of admins who make those kinds of redirects. Admins may well have to decide on blocks and bans for sexists and those who abuse Wikipedia for their own fetishistic delights; this admin could not be trusted to uphold whatever standards we have. That is the opportunity we missed when the ArbCom proceeding was closed because Neelix had resigned, and that, I think, might have satisfied the community a bit since it would have shown justice, not the proper or convenient following of procedure.

Questions from Johanna[edit]

2. I like your reform-minded attitude and your DR positions in general. However, I was thrown for a loop a little bit when I read "I can’t promise to make it simpler, since I barely understand it, but I would like to try," in your statement. Is there some sort of misunderstanding in the language for the "barely understand it" part? If not, why should we trust you as an arbitrator?

   Well, I'm sort of kidding, but I'm sort of not. The eight different pages one has to navigate to contribute to an ArbCom case, that's not easy, never mind for a relatively new editor. What I am not sure about is how much desire there is to change the structure of ArbCom (I mean the "real" cases, not the motions), and if I'm the only one out of 15 who thinks, for instance, that a Workshop isn't necessary when we have three talk pages, then there won't be much happening. Besides, I am just not sure (and I'm sure you're not either) how it works on the inside. In other words, I don't know what processes and hurdles there are that we don't know about. The unknown unknowns, as Rumsfeld said.

   I've been here for a few years now. "Let ArbCom handle it" has become something of a mantra in the last few years, it seems. If we allow ArbCom to handle so many cases, it would behoove us to not make the process too complicated--and by that I mean, for instance, what (evidence, diffs, accusations) gets to go where (Evidence, Workshop) at which time. We could start with a manual for ArbCom newbies, one which I certainly need to read.

4. Over the years, there has been a lot of talk of reform in many places, including ArbCom. How will you prove to be different from the others and actually change things?

   Time will tell. I have a tendency to keep my word. Mind you, I think a lot of people have tried to change certain things, and sometimes that works. If it doesn't, that's not necessary someone failing--we have a large group of editors, a large group of admins, a whole host of IP editors, and all these have (sometimes conflicting) sets of interests. It takes more than one person to make something move. What I see in this election is a lot of candidates who have racked up high number of article edits and should know a thing or two about how things feel for editors. That's a good sign.

Question from User:SageRad[edit]

2. What would you think of stronger guidelines about bullying behaviors, and an anti-bullying task force made up of volunteers as a way to curb long-term problematic bullying behaviors?

Questions from Ryk72[edit]

Thank you for stepping forward; your commitment to serving the community is greatly appreciated.

Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.

2. The en.Wikipedia community has been likened to that of a gaol (US:prison), with members of various gangs aggressively supporting each other in disputes, which are policed by trusted inmates. Do you agree with this view? If so, why so? If not, why not? To what extent are the behaviours which lead to this view enabled by AN/I, AE & ArbCom?

   I don't subscribe to this view. We're frequently overstating this cabal business. That groups form is a natural result of collaborative editing. I don't know how the boards and entities you mention enable those perceptions, which aren't as general as some may think. ArbCom is, of course, an entity that should rise above any cliques, but since it has to make difficult decisions it's easy to blame ArbCom for problems it didn't create but was asked to oversee.

4. Do you believe that our current processes & procedures encourage adversarial methods of dispute resolution? If so, is this a good or bad thing? If bad, what role should ArbCom play in addressing this?

   Dispute resolution is by definition adversarial, cause there's a dispute to resolve--it doesn't become problematic until editors lose sight of the goal: improving our beautiful project. Whether processes also carry an adversarial tone is a different matter and depends on the editors who populate that and other boards. As it happens, WP:DR, for instance, has some high-quality volunteers who go to great lengths to create workable, collaborative solutions. ArbCom has no role to play there: it is a place of last resort and butting in would be frowned upon by everyone.

6. What are the advantages and disadvantages of WP:BOOMERANG? Would you support it's retention, restriction or abolition? Why?

   BOOMERANG is just a redirect to an essay, Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. In itself it means little, but it sometimes serves as a useful warning, that one try and not shoot oneself in the foot. It's occasionally abused, of course, although since it's not a policy one can't even call that "abuse"--but yelling BOOMERANG can sometimes amount to shooting oneself in the foot.

8. We see regular use of WP:DUCK/WP:SOCK to justify indefinite blocks of new editors entering contentious topic spaces, without those editors being explicitly linked to banned accounts. Is this use justified? If so, why so? If not, why not?

   I don't know that we see this regularly. I know that on occasion one sees accounts that are clearly not new accounts and appear out of nowhere to stir up trouble. Depending on circumstances, DUCK may well be appropriate, though for the log it always looks better to be able to link it to an account.

10. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Remedies, ArbCom implemented a "500/30" limit on edits to the Palestine-Israel (the 3rd topic space in which this remedy has been used). What are the positives & negatives of this remedy as written? Would a more technical/formal implementation (akin to semi-protection) be an improvement? What other improvements, if any, might be made?

    I'm not smart enough to determine whether this can be done in an automated fashion.

12. A hypothetical editor, involved in a contentious topic space, regularly derails Talk page discussion with personal views on the subject, anecdotes of their off-Wiki involvement in the topic, epistemological first principle reasoning for exclusion of material, "hatting" of discussions, and snide attacks on new editors. Administrators have failed to address this editor's behaviour; WP:AE has failed to address the editor's behaviour. What should be done?

    If it's just one editor, I doubt that this will ever get to ArbCom.

14. Would you be prepared to recuse from 1/3rd of cases, and encourage other Arbs to do likewise, so that each case might be addressed faster, and by fewer Arbs?

    I am not aware that having fewer Arbs automatically means that cases are handled more quickly. Besides, a diversity of Arbs should in principle make for a more fair and balanced set of solutions.

Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from EvergreenFir[edit]

2. To put my questions into context and saying without passing any judgment, I think it is fair to say you have been "close" to some of the cases before the arb com in the past year and have strongly held beliefs about some of the subjects of those cases. Do you feel yourself willing and able to recognize when you may be too close or involved with the subject of a case? If such occasions arise or cases where you feel you cannot remain relatively neutral, are you willing to recuse yourself? If not, how would you justify your participation in such cases?

   By "subjects" you mean "accused"? :) Sure, I suppose--I mean, I suppose. But before I write you a well-crafted and diplomatic answer, let me just say that this cuts both ways. Some of those subjects, or perhaps just one, few editors/admins/arbs had no opinion on the matter, and I think there is a tendency to not tar and feather all parties equally, if you know what I mean. That is, this question should be asked of some other (sitting) candidates as well. And there's another factor here: one is quickly painted as supporting this or that. For instance, in the Landmark case some said I was not neutral, either pro or con. In truth, I had never heard of the outfit before I ran into the articles, and I have never had a dog in that fight. The accusation of partiality is easily made.

   In general, I think I know pretty well when I can't be objective, and will have no problem recusing myself from voting on proposals where I think I can't be objective. And I know there are some strong opinions out there, but the fact that I frequently get it from both sides, so to speak, gives me some faith that I'm not anybody's fool. I may add that I don't get a lot of pressure exerted on me to act this way or that by other involved parties, and I think that's a good sign; also, I don't use IRC or email lists or any of those other less public means of communications, and stay relatively dramah-free.

Thank you for your time! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from ThurnerRupert[edit]

2. Re: key success factors of the linux community [duplicated from Drmies discussion] linus torvalds created a community of programmers working on the linux kernel 1991. the community grew since then to nowadays 5'000 commits a month, 5 times more than 10 years ago. alone the linux kernel mailing list receives more than 20'000 messages a month, 3 times more than 10 years ago. innovative technologies are added to the kernel first from universities, individuals, companies, bearing the GPL. what do you see as the key success factors of that development, and what can you take off that into your work at wikipedia?

   Sorry, but I have no idea what to do with this question, and it's not ArbCom's job to maintain or expand the community.

Riverstogo (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Atsme[edit]

2. What purpose is served by the Proposed Principals that are established for each ArbCom case, and how important are they to the Findings of Fact (FoF) and Proposed Remedies?

   Writing is revising. I'm looking at a stack of student essays, and the first one already shows the writer disregarded my advice (which is to always cut the first paragraph you wrote. By the same token, the first draft (and the principles are first on the list, though I don't know if they're always the first that are drafted) tends to point the document in a general direction, sometimes in important, individual ways.

4. What would you do as an active arb if you discovered the PD for the case you were about to review had been poorly drafted, including (a) blatant omission of Findings of Fact (FoF) for an involved party, and (b) numerous diffs provided as evidence against other involved parties did not support the FoF?

   Obviously that would need to be fixed, as a matter of principle.

6. Do you have any new Prius jokes you'd like to share?

   Sorry--even Rosie, who's sitting with me in my office, can't think of one, and she is known for her jokes (most famously, "How can a cat drive a car??? There is no answer, that's the joke). The Prius is just not that funny. What I can disclose is that a golden Prius is worth two points.

Atsme^📞📧 05:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Drmies. FYI, 3rd question: Overheard in men's shower: "It's MY Prius and I'll wash it as often as I want to!" Oh, and with regards to "How can a cat drive a car??" Impurrrfectly. [1] Atsme^📞📧 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Kevin Gorman[edit]

2. Recently a situation came up where the gender of an editor, which had not been disclosed by the editor anywhere on-wiki, was posted on several pages. The gender of the editor given the nature of their background is a potentially quite sensitive piece of information, with potential real-life implications. With fairly extensive discussion and multiple requests to oversight the information, the decision was made not to oversight the information with the stated reason being that gender does not explicitly fall under any of the English Wikipedia's oversight criteria. In a similar situation, would you support either interpreting the oversight criteria more broadly in general, IAR oversighting a situation like this, rewriting the oversight criteria to be more inclusive, or would you choose to not oversight the information in question? (As background, according to the EFF, the triumvirate of date of birth, zip code, and gender are sufficient to uniquely identify 87% of American citizens.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Kevin Gorman, I'm sorry--I hadn't checked in here in a few days.

   I'm not an oversighter, but as an admin I have the revdel tool, which is almost as powerful in preserving privacy. I believe very strongly that revdel/oversight should be used if its use preserves someone's online and offline privacy, and I have in fact made such a revdel in the past. Admins (and arbs, of course) are given pretty powerful tools and we are trusted, one hopes, to have the judgment to employ those tools when necessary. In a case like yours, which for me is hypothetical since I don't think I know of it, when there is serious concern, IAR basically equates to common sense. I'm not one for rewriting everything to cover every situation; I do not think that that is feasible or possible, so I suppose I fall in the "interpretative" category. Having been the butt of some harassment myself, I take this very seriously, and disclosing gender is, for me, no different from disclosing other private information (you may know I'm a huge supporter of singular they, for instance). Neither plumbing nor orientation, broadly construed, is public unless it was disclosed.