Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here?

   Hmm sure but Complex question. What are you interested in? First of all I ALWAYS agree with Opabinia regalis, even if I don't. Of course I think civility is important, of course I appreciate users who do Good Things, of course I think doing Good Things is not carte blanche for getting away with bad behavior. But in this case, as it turns out I WAS ACTUALLY THERE, though it seems like it was much longer ago. So, this shows that OR influenced me to do my job a little better, and I took her thoughts into consideration, modifying my initial lukewarm "accept". She rewarded me afterwards, of course, and I acknowledged that.

   Thank you ;) - exactly what I was interested in. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Alex Shih

2. This is related to 28bytes's question on other candidate pages in which you would probably be expecting soon, about linking to offsite court documents (which is still on the page in question), and a tangentially related note about the topic of vested contributors. What is your stance on longtime editors/administrators that breaks rules without justifiable cause, and have you or will you promote handling such instances without personal bias as a member of the committee if re-elected? Alex Shih (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Alex, I'm not sure I understand everything you're asking, or whether I should wait for The Other Question to drop. No one should break rules without justifiable cause, of course (I think that's what you're asking), but you'll find (and as an arb yourself no doubt you have found) that everyone has a justifiable cause, though some are not particularly strong. Now in this case, I'm sort of trying to sniff out who you have in mind and what I have to do with them that you'd ask about personal bias. I am not particularly close with anyone in that entire mess, I think--certainly not with Fred Bauder--though I'm on relatively friendly terms with most if not all the admins in the various discussions, including the ArbCom case request. That request, I assume, won't take long--and I'd say "per Opabinia regalis" if that hadn't become emblematic of my decision making process! ;)

4. Is it the role of the committee to serve the community, or is it community's role to serve the committee? This is related to the following comment: ([1]). My question to you is, do you agree with AGK's rebuttal there? Further, what will you do, if re-elected, to ensure that the committee stays closer connected with the community?

   I understand both sentiments, though if, hypothetically speaking, I were dragged before ArbCom I'd appreciate the support expressed in the "dismiss" comments. But strictly speaking AGK is absolutely right, of course. But that's only one out of four questions. Let's see: it is the role of the committee to serve the community. It is the responsibility of individual editors to think things over carefully before filing a case. Whether that was done here, I'll leave to the judgment of wiser folks. As for your last question, this is a matter we discussed regularly. Prompt responses to emails is imperative, and so is keeping editors posted on progress--but then, ArbCom can't always say in public what it might like to say.

6. Do you agree with Courcelles's answer to my question here ([2]), in particular the part about the level of conduct on the mailing list "should be held in an atmosphere or respect for each other, the matter under discussion, and respect for non-subscribers who are mentioned". If yes, what will you do, if re-elected, to ensure this expected level of conduct continues to be maintained on the mailing list?

   I'm not sure what you're looking for me to say here. Arbs, maintain a proper level of decorum! I hope I haven't violated that while I was on ArbCom, and if anyone does I will speak up. But you with your magic glasses can see what some dude keeps saying about my children. You'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I use a colloquialism if that ever gets discussed on the list.

8. This is a question slightly related to Banedon's questioning above about "independent thinking". It is no secret that ArbCom occasionally suffers from "herd behaviour" (like the rest of the community) where the lack of leadership leads to the committee being unable to come to an agreement, which is obviously problematic in emergency situations. Do you have any suggestions that would address this concern if re-elected? Alex Shih (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Eh, I don't want a strong man running anything, and I don't think the community does either. ArbCom is part of a sometimes slow process, but democracy is always a messy business. I am not, however, aware of real emergencies that ArbCom missed out on because of a lack of leadership or something like that.

Question from Cinderella157

2. Arb policy makes a requirement for transparency and Arb cases make an explicit statement of intent to reach a "fair" decision.
   1. What are, in your opinion, the "principles and spirit" (per WP:5P5) that underpin the policy and statement?
   2. The policy in particular, requires "detailed rationales for decisions related to cases". Please comment on this duty as it might apply to you (say, as a drafting arbitrator) and the committee as a whole, in respect to how this duty is discharged (noting the underlying principles), particularly where the evidence presented might be in conflict.
   3. Do you consider that this duty has been complied with and what might you do to improve compliance?

Cinderella157 (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1. It seems to me that the "principles and spirit" are those of the democratic ideals that underlie our beautiful project. 2. During my tenure we didn't have that many cases, and I never drafted one though I think I've been pretty involved with all of them. Yes, detailed rationales are a good thing. I'm not sure what you mean with conflicting evidence. There's always going to be conflicting evidence since, at heart, almost all ArbCom cases boil down to either good-faith editors running into each other or a good-faith editor running into policy; bad-faith editors are typically dealt with much earlier. Conflicting evidence? "Editor X is of good faith but this or that conviction of theirs has become untenable," essentially, and the problem isn't so much explaining the conflict but balancing the evidence. 3. I don't want to talk about compliance since that makes me think of SACS and I try to avoid them like the plague, but in general I think drafters have done a pretty good job, yes.

3. There is something of a theme in questions regarding civility (and personal attacks). My question pertains to the conduct of cases (starting at the request phase) and not to cases about civility and personal attacks. I note that an ArbCom case is a place to address grievances and it is appropriate to make reasonable allegations in "good faith" supported by links. WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL is relevant.
   1. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements in a case that contained derogatory gender-related comments by way of commentary?
   2. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements/submissions (such as evidence) in a case that were a significant misrepresentation of context? While this is uncivil, in such a context, I believe that it might rise to the level of a personal attack by virtue of the potential consequences if the statement/submission is taken at face value.
   3. While Arbs are not infallible, the community endowers Arbs with significant power and trust, and with virtually no recourse. What would be your expectations and your actions where an Arb has made an uncivil comment (rising to the level of a personal attack) openly in the course of a case? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   That's a lot of questions. 1. "derogatory gender-related comments" is not acceptable, inside a case, outside a case, or on the margins of a case. I don't see how "derogatory gender-related comments" could legitimately be used to make a "reasonable allegation in 'good faith'". 2. If evidence is misrepresented we are well past incivility--I don't rightly understand why we'd be focusing on CIVIL and NPA when misrepresentation is fraud, which is much worse. 3. If an arb makes an uncivil remark, they should be treated just as a non-arb who makes an uncivil remark.

5. In my assessment of Civil POV pushing: this behaviour is not readily apparent to those not affected; it requires a "body" of evidence over an extended period to establish a case; and, ArbCom has a poor record in dealing with it – perhaps, because of the dealing with the amount of evidence to sift through or because restrictions on the size of submissions. Please comment, with any insights or solutions you might offer. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure that that would require more evidence than, say, a pattern of POV editing or misuse of sources, and ArbCom has handled those cases, with varying degrees of success. They all require a body of evidence--look at the Magioladitis case, for instance.

Question from Banedon

2. Apologies for the following awkward question. My impression of you in Arbcom the last time was that you seemed to "go with the flow"; it was other arbitrators making decisions and you would simply support them. Your answer to Gerda Arendt above, saying that you always agree with OR, is symptomatic. Do you have any examples of times when you demonstrated independent thinking? For example, a time when you disagreed (and continue to disagree) with the other arbitrators, or a time when you were the first one to write an opinion?

   Oh, not awkward at all. I think first of all I'm pleased to have worked with people so eminently reasonable that they usually agreed with me. Second, as I indicated elsewhere, much of the work is the day-to-day affairs, where I like to think I was sometimes pretty quick to answer emails and propose or make decisions. And there are two specific things that I wanted to get done last time and I did get them done--meaning, twice I managed to convince the committee to do something, something good, in relation to specific editors.

   Now, I don't know if I was ever the first (or the last?) to write an opinion--I assume what you mean is whether to accept a case or not, since that's about the only time that you see us out of committee, so to speak, and speaking off the cuff. I am sure someone will be able to find examples that prove or disprove your statement, but I'm not so driven to do that. Obviously the proposed decisions you see in cases are written in committee, and typically they are written up by the friendliest and most knowledgeable person, the procedural experts. By the time they get published for us to vote on we've already talked them to death, and the positions are usually fixed.

2. You write in your answer to the previous question that "And there are two specific things that I wanted to get done last time and I did get them done--meaning, twice I managed to convince the committee to do something, something good, in relation to specific editors." Can you give any details about these two things?

   I can but I won't, sorry, for various reasons, none of them being my usual modesty: I do not want to attract Barbara Streisand to this discussion.

Question from Liz

2. Hello, Drmies. As you have previously served or are currently serving on the Arbitration Committee, will you state what you believe is biggest misconception most editors have about how ARBCOM works? What do you think editors SHOULD know about the operation of ARBCOM and how arbitrators collaborate that we probably don't realize? Any aspect of ARBCOM's operation that you would change if you could? Thanks and good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Good question, Liz. I think one misconception, found among some editors, is that we're partisan hacks, when politics really never come into play. Another is--well, I don't know if it's a misconception, but I had no idea there would be so much email, and so much procedure. My former colleagues know I'm not the best on procedure. What maybe they should know is that ArbCom members, at least in my experience, truly have the best intentions for the project in mind--and that the best ArbCom members are also regularly editors. What regular editors probably don't know (functionaries and OTRS members probably know this) is how bad it can get in terms of harassment and doxxing.

   There are two things I'd like for ArbCom, and both are really useless pipe dreams. I would like the mechanics of the operation to run smoothly and flawlessly--I wasted way too much time even getting access to the email archives, and there were other very bothersome hoops which for non-techies are just very difficult. That's for the WMF to help with, I imagine; I have the feeling they've left too much of that to committee over the years. Second, I'd like some openness to our discussions, but when I was on the committee, every time I thought about openness we got some case that showed the importance of us working behind closed doors.

   One more thing. You know Gerda asked me, above, about that one statement--which was made halfway through a discussion on whether to accept some case or not. It was practically accpeted, then Opabinia came along and swung the court, so to speak, in a very public forum, and the case was declined. I thought that was great, that we could, for the while, speak relatively freely in a back and forth and convince each other, in a format I like so much better than email lists.

Question from Fram

2. You claim " there are two specific things that I wanted to get done last time and I did get them done--meaning, twice I managed to convince the committee to do something, something good, in relation to specific editors.", but refuse to provide any evidence or indication of what this was, making it a very unhelpful boast. The only thing I know of where you took the lead and convinced others at ArbCom of your position, is the unbanning of User:Guido den Broeder, which was the exact opposite of "something good", it was something awful (the original idea, the handling of it, and the outcome), but (to your credit) at least you had the guts to admit your role in it, contrary to most sittin arbs who refused to publicly declare their position on this unban fiasco. Can you please confirm or deny that the unban of Guido Den Broeder was one of the "good" things you instigated?

   Hell no. Guido was one of those editors where ROPE seemed to be an acceptable rationale. Fun fact: Guido was one of the first editors I ever had a conflict with; somehow or other Basic income in the Netherlands resulted from it. He's one of those people that can draw the blood out from under your nails, as the Dutch might say. No, I did not run point on this--Guido emailed the committee, and I was the second arb to comment on his request, proposing we let him back with a topic ban. I'll betray one confidence: no one on the committee objected, but I did say "Let's see how long he lasts..." in that thread. He didn't last long. I understand there's a bit of bad blood and old animosity between the two of you. If you're wondering why I said "Good to see you again, Guido. Het allerbeste" on his talk page--I had hopes he'd be a productive editor within the confines of his topic ban, and if he comes to my house I'll still offer him coffee, like I do for everyone (Fram, you'd be surprised to know, perhaps, how unusual that is in America).

   As for my boast--æghwæþres sceal / scearp scyldwiga gescad witan, / worda ond worca, se þe wel þenceð, and that's about all I have to say on that on-wiki.

Question from Shrike

2. There are currently ongoing ARCA could you state your opinion about the issue [[3]].

   If I weren't pressed for time right now I'd say something like "The ruling is a pain in the arse, difficult to parse (as in KI's first example above where it confused the hell out of me, and I'm not a stupid person, honest), and just needs binning in favour of something that's easy to work out." Of course I'd never use the word "arse", if only because the "arse/parse" rhyme is uncouth. ... OMG I'm in agreement with Sandstein--again??? So yeah, I do have an opinion: this is clearly something that needs to be worked out, preferably before the new committee is sworn in.

Questions from David Tornheim

2. I noticed that you did not participate in this RfC asking 'Should the "repetitive usage" of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable"?’  Were you aware of this RfC with hundreds of respondents? If so, is there a reason why you did not weigh in?

   I hadn't noticed that I hadn't participated. Should I have? Was I notified? (David Tornheim, this block's for you.)

4. If you had weighed in, what would your answer have been?

   I saw Malik say "fuck no", but as you may know I try to maintain a high level of decorum, so I wouldn't have said that. I'm reading over the discussion, or some of it. It's funny: on this very page I'm accused of being a middle-of-the-road, sheepish follower of others, and here I'm looking at Mz7's close, and I'm thinking, yeah, exactly. I am clearly not a unique individual, but rather just another piece of milquetoast. (I don't know if you can see my logs, BTW--plenty of the almost 13,000 blocks I placed are for various "uncivil" remarks, though I don't recall blocking someone for saying "fuck off".)

6. Is it okay to say 'fuck off' in anger to other editors?

   Is it ever OK to speak in anger? Come on, these are loaded questions. Of course it's not OK, and of course some of us, including me, do it.

8. Is it okay to say 'fuck off’ to another editor in a dispute over content or when one believes the other editor to be breaking Wikipedia rules?

10. What is your opinion about use of ad hominems?

    Hmm I'd advocate premarital sex before I'd advise anyone to engage in ad hominems.

12. Is it acceptable to use pejorative labels of other editors such as climate-change-denier, anti-vaxxer, flat-earther, etc., (especially without diffs) to discredit them in a dispute that has nothing to do with the topic under consideration?

    I'm sorry but the sky is indeed blue. What are you looking for? Cussing others out isn't OK, I think we all agree with that. Making unfounded accusations isn't OK. Making irrelevant personal comments isn't OK. But there are contexts in which "anti-vaxxer" is a statement of fact, it seems to me, and if someone has that userbox, a diff isn't really necessary. And then there are words that are never OK. But given the outcome of the RfC you pointed at earlier, it's not likely that this will be a matter before ArbCom--though I sure hope I didn't just jinx that into being.

Questions from Collect

2. Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?

   No.

4. If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits?

   That depends, though it's possibly not a good sign--then again, if an arb is also an admin, and as an admin has warned a user for BLP violations, for instance, does that mean that the admin/arb can no longer judge the user fairly in an arbitration case? I don't think so.

6. Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually far from home for an extended period, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow fully reasoned responses to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"?

   Hmm why do I feel this is a loaded question? Sorry Collect, I'm not going to post-judge that case.

Question from Atsme

2. Under what conditions are you willing to recuse yourself from an arb case, particularly one involving an editor (either filer or filed against) that you have either previously shown ill-will toward, perceived or otherwise?

   Good question, esp. considering the "perceived" part. I cannot control others' perceptions of me, nor do I bear any one of our editors ill will.

   I have faith in mankind, and have rarely suggested to others they need to recuse since I believe that most admins/arbs/etc. here put Wikipedia above personal matters. I'm trying to think of any one editor whom I think I could not assess fairly, and I can only come up with one or two, at the most. [time passes: No, the ones I'm thinking of, I think I can put personal feelings aside, even with them.] I was looking back over a bunch old business last night and ran into some thing where I told my fellow arbs (I think it was on the arb mailing list) that I'd be happy to recuse if they wanted me to, but no one suggested I should. But without getting into too much detail, I will tell you that I have vehemently argued on the arb list for one specific editor with whom I had nothing but conflict on-wiki, an editor who I am sure hated me as much as they thought I hated them--and in that case one might even have argued I was INVOLVED since we had had content-related interactions. Yet I advocated for them, indeed started the process of a return to Wikipedia.

   But that's not really what you were asking. I suppose I'd seriously consider recusing if relatively independent colleagues believe I should. Does that make sense?

Questions from SashiRolls

2. Hi Drmies. You said above you were expecting an Other Question, perhaps this short series would be helpful. You were involved with the Cirt/Sagecandor case during your tenure on ArbCom (I corresponded with you both via the ArbCom listserve and on meta while blocked). You followed Sagecandor's edits quite closely § (much closer than you had followed Cirt's §). Despite your (in my view, valid) concerns with their editing, you did not chose to use your big block button. Instead you made strong, snarky comments not dissimilar to those I was blocked for making. I thank you for suggesting an end to my now-defined 500-day block, concerning the Trumpliography matter. Dozens of people have mentioned the lessons I must draw from that episode (e.g. stick to literature §). tldr: Are there any lessons for en.wp -- and specifically for ArbCom -- to draw from my 500-day block appeal, in your opinion?

   Meh I'm not "following" either one. I've worked with Cirt, but that was a long time ago; both of them edited a bunch of American politics pages where I've dabbled as well. Oh, Sagecandor--yeah, on the talk page for Christine Blasey Ford, and that Mark Judge dude, but I'm not aware that I interacted very much with them directly, except maybe over that resume stuff. Anyway, yeah, I have concerns, but that's it, nor have I used my Big Button on you. And you didn't get blocked for just that one comment, I'm sure... Anyway, I'm glad you're back, and my advice is typically not worth much, but I think you know, and I wish others knew this better, that hounding is held in very low regard, even the appearance of hounding, and that's given as a reason in your block log as well. If I had been blocking you I don't think I would have put NOTHERE in there, by the way.

4. Do you think that it is a positive sign that -- with one exception until very recently -- only former Arbs have chosen to step forward for this election?

   No, I don't, but I don't know what to think about that. I've tried to recruit a few folks, but only K-stick took the bait. One admin had a lousy excuse about having a real life and a business and a family, and another said they'd needed to know more about ArbCom and past cases and all that. I can think of a dozen or more people I'd gladly see run for this position, but you gotta admit, there's very little about it that's attractive. And let me add that I think there are no female editors running for this set of arbs.

Questions from Carrite

2. Hello, and thank you for running for ArbCom. There are a number of off-wiki venues for criticism of Wikipedia content, policy, processes, and participants. Such sites include Wikipediocracy, Genderdesk, Wikipedia Sucks!, Wikipedia Review (mark 2), and Reddit. Do you read content or participate by writing at any of these venues? If so, which? Do you feel that such sites have positive value in identifying and correcting such problems and abuses that emerge at Wikipedia or do you feel that such sites are wholly negative in essence, without redeeming value? Carrite (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Hey Tim--thanks for the questions. I think you know I pay little attention to those sites and look at them only when I have to--like, when I got some email saying "hey look you're famous". (Plus, holy moly, I don't need more rabbit holes in my life...and I can never remember all the names and aliases.) I never look at Reddit (on principle), I don't know about Genderdesk--and Wikipedia Review, there's a mark 2? That's the thing you write for, right, and Jayen466? I don't want to go searching now, but Wikipediocracy is the forum-board looking site, and WR looks like a sort of newspaper? I know some of and respect Jayen's work, and I remember seeing a story or two I thought was valuable--but it's been a few years. So if I'm thinking of the right website, WR, I think that's very valuable. The forum, that's mostly banned people cussing at non-banned people, but I have hardly scratched the surface of that site. In general nothing is without redemption as long as there are people of good faith: I know you and Jayen are of good faith. But, again, I just don't read them enough to say much more than that. But anytime you want me to read something that will teach me a thing or two, let me know plz.

2. The Wikimedia foundation began issuing site bans (“SanFranBans”) of Wikipedians deemed unacceptable for participation several years ago, beginning by making a case for such exclusions on child protection grounds, but gradually disposing of inconvenient individuals for a range of other transparently obvious reasons. These exclusions are made by one or a very few individuals with no oversight and no process for appeal. Do you feel that this growing trend of WMF permanently banning individuals from participation on all Wikimedia projects is problematic, or is this intervention beneficial? Do you feel that each and every ban so far implemented by San Francisco has been justified? Do you feel that San Francisco banning individuals for reasons beyond child protection or potential physical violence is an intervention into Arbcom's purview as Wikipedia's discipline committee? Carrite (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Unfortunately I can't say much about this because I don't know much about this. I can think of a few editors who, well, you know, got banned for pretty serious reasons, but do not remember exactly how they were banned, whether that came from San Francisco or not, except for maybe in one or two cases. So I also can't take your "gradually disposing..." as fact, nor do I know that this is a growing trend. What I can tell you is that the WMF/Legal has been active trying to get redress one way or another for harassment, and I fully support that--but the one or two cases that I am aware of were started or prompted by ArbCom and functionaries, and were pursued in ways that ArbCom could never bring to bear. However, in general, sure, I don't think that the WMF should ban for the things that ArbCom typically decides on. At the same time, if we're talking about serious harassment cases, stalking, doxxing, ArbCom quickly runs out of power, resources, legal standing, etc. There is no way, I think, that the community or ArbCom can deal with the refdesk troll, for instance.

Thank you for your answers. Carrite (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Peacemaker67

2. Given the lack of attempts at dispute resolution or dramaboard action that preceded it, what are your thoughts on the decision of ArbCom to take on the German War Effort case this last year?

   I don't think I subscribe to the premise, that there wasn't enough done beforehand. I think that presented with the evidence in the case request the committee made the right decision. I'm no expert on that case, but I am very much inclined to agree with Worm, who showed initial hesitation and then accepted, saying "I'm satisfied that there are longstanding problems" that ArbCom should try to tackle. And look at the results. One editor was banned for harassment (though they might have been community-banned on AN/I as well), another was topic-banned; this required significant amounts of evidence, and ArbCom is probably the best venue for such a wide-ranging examination of editors' behavior.

Questions from Beyond My Ken

2. Drmies: It would be very nice to have the only rational editor on Wikipedia back in the ArbCom saddle again. Some of the questions that have been posed to you have seemed somewhat problematic and argumentative, so I wanted to turn to something more relevant. It's a two-part question, so please bear with me.
   (1) If a team has 4th down and 2 to go on the 20 yard line late in the 4th quarter, and they're down by 6 points, do they kick and take the almost certain 3 points, risking that they won't have a chance to score again, or do they go for it and risk turning the ball over?
   (2) How would you make ArbCom more responsive to making decisions in such a situation, considering that a choice must be made expeditiously – even granted the possible use of a time out – and cannot be tied up in bureaucratic knots?

   1. You go for it, and if you have Tua as a QB, you win. Like here, with Celine Dion thrown in gratuitously. Then again, if you have that defense that kept LSU on their own half for most of that other National Championship game, you can do whatever you like. BTW I'm surprised no one has yet faulted me for butchering your words into a marvelous compliment. 2. ArbCom works really well if you have at least a couple of people who are ready to jump on things. I see that GorillaWarfare is running: she, and Opabinia, were among the most active arbs when I was on the committee, picking up a ball quickly and not dropping it. Our times out are sometimes cop outs, sometimes necessarily so, since some decisions (I'm talking about the ones you guys never see, decisions made on the mailing lists about non-public matters) just take time, and consist of emails saying "we're discussing this". But yeah, I remember more than once asking "hey, what about this thing from last week", and others did that too--sometimes committee think happens, when you think someone else is taking care of something, and they think the same thing. I remember us discussing those problems, but organizationally that's not easy to do. But if there's anything I can promise you, it's that I will do my best to respond quickly and to stay on top of the things I pick up. OK I'm mixing way too many metaphors. Also, ArbCom is not a football game. I think, though, that generally speaking the committee I served with did a pretty good job with those emailed requests, and I aim to do that again.

4. Was Wikipedia created to have a place where people can have civil discussions with each other, or was it created in order to make an online encyclopedia which presents good, accurate information for the public? In other words, which is more important, being civil at all times, or improving the encyclopedia at all times?
   And yes, that is a rhetorical question, although you can certainly answer if you would like to. I'm just a bit annoyed that some people – specifically a currently defrocked admin – seem to think that civility is the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia, and that a lack of civility is somehow our paramount problem, 'cause it ain't, not by a long shot. Much more dangerous to us are POV, racist, sexist, ethnic and nationalistic editing, hoaxes, undetected vandalism, citing sources that don't support the information added -- anything the compromises the integrity of the encyclopedia -- and yet no one seems to be asking questions of ArbCom candidates about what we can do to minimize those very important problems, everyone wants to know how we can suppress people from saying "Fuck you" to each other.

Questions from power~enwiki

2. Civility seems to be a theme of this election. Do you feel that "templating the regulars" (such as with {{uw-3rr}}) is something that should be discouraged as uncivil, or accepted as a procedural requirement? And do you feel that the Arbitration Committee should help determine matters of that sort? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmm I just don't think that ArbCom should want to think they can somehow "take care" of such matters. That's really for the community to decide. And let's not forget that the community has significant influence on what ArbCom does, in the Workshop phase for instance. I wasn't very involved with the recent MILHIST case, but one of the comments I read is that the case might have been more effective--I'm not sure how the commentator defined that--if there had been more input in the Workshop from non-MILHIST editors. No, "templating the regulars" shouldn't be made illegal or whatever, and it already is discouraged. Sometimes regulars need to be templated; they're not that special, haha. It's so easy to be snarky here, especially when you can do so via a Twinkle-assisted template, but I think most editors successfully resist that urge. Mind you, the 3R template also serves a formal purpose, just like an NPA-4 warning: "I told you this might happen". Still, I see them more as a reminder than as a formal requirement. But not all templates are the same, of course--so no, I don't want more rules there. But I'm saying this as a regular editor/admin, who wants a limited ArbCom. God, do I sound like a Libertarian??

4. Do you feel that Kick Six is the correct WP:COMMONNAME for the article on the 78th Iron Bowl? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I have no idea what you're talking about. I vaguely remember a football game that ruined an otherwise perfectly good family trip.

Question from Rschen7754

2. An editor who frequently leaves pleasantries on your talk page is a major party to an ArbCom case. What do you do? --Rschen7754 06:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Pudeo

2. In recent months, you have told editors to "fuck off" in your block review edit summaries[4][5][6][7] There was also a civility complaint against you at ANI in August, in which the initiator criticized several edit summaries which he considered to be rude. Would you be committed to civility in the ArbCom proceedings when communicating with users who you consider to be problematic?

2. In a July 2018 AE thread you were asked to recuse by two users and one administrator because you had commented on the talk page that led to the filing, but you did not do so. How easily would you be willing to recuse yourself in ArbCom cases?

2. Last week you told on your talkpage that you can't run for ArbCom because you have too many obligations. What made you change your mind and do you really have time to participate in complex cases in a fair way?

Questions from Oshwah

2. Other than having the adequate technical skills and knowledge required, and having the level of experience consistent with being granted the role(s), what other specific areas, aspects, skills, and/or traits would you look for and personally want to see in a candidate who is applying to be appointed as a CheckUser or Oversighter? What specific areas (outside of knowledge and skill, experience) in an otherwise-good candidate would cause you to halt, make a complete about-face, and oppose their candidacy for Checkuser or Oversighter if you were to see or find it?