Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Keilana

Keilana

Hi, I’m Emily, and I’ve been a Wikipedian for more than 8 years. I’ve been involved in lots of different places, like starting WikiProject Women Scientists, helping to organize WikiProject Women’s Health, developing a systemic bias workshop kit for Wikipedia workshops on college campuses, and helping to write a bunch of featured articles, good articles, and DYKs.

I’m putting my hat in the ring this year because I think the community needs an Arbcom that includes more women, and more people who spend most of their time in the trenches writing articles. In a happy coincidence, I happen to fall squarely in the intersection of those two categories.

ArbCom has become less and less effective in actually solving the problems faced by Wikipedia’s regular editors, and I think that my experience in facilitating collaboration and my problem solving skills can help make the arbitration process both more effective and more useful to the community.

I’m currently an oversighter, so I’ve already identified to the WMF and signed the non-disclosure agreement. I have an alternate account, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH), that I use for my Wikipedian-in-Residence work at NIOSH.

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from Thryduulf

Do you foresee having any issues regarding time, conflicts of interest or anything else due to your Wikimedian in residence role? Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it'll be a problem. It's a part-time thing with flexible hours, and of course I would recuse from any case where I had a conflict of interest, whether related to my Wikimedian in Residence position or related to something else. Keilana (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Biblioworm

Do you have any experience in successfully resolving disputes, either on-wiki or off-wiki?
I'm an EMT on a college campus, and part of that job is keeping people calm and de-escalating situations while also keeping the patient's best interests at heart and providing excellent care. You can imagine that things get quite heated sometimes there. I also did some mediation work on wiki, but that was ages ago. Keilana (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect

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?
I don't think sanctions are at all inevitable. They're, in general, likely, because once a dispute makes it to ArbCom, it's generally quite severe, but if the evidence doesn't warrant sanctions, sanctions shouldn't be imposed. Keilana (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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?
That really depends on the context of the dispute and whether or not the administrator is acting in an administrative capacity when making that comment. It's hard to answer that in the abstract without having more details about the background and context of what's going on. Keilana (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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?
Common sense should prevail. If someone's traveling or ill or something, as long as it's not dragging things out too much, it's reasonable to give them time. The word limit should also be governed by common sense. If someone feels they need more words, they should ask and reasonable requests should be granted. Keilana (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Antony–22

In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it?
I think referring to issues here as 'free speech' is kind of talking past the point, since this is a private website and not, you know, a country. But if we move back from the whole legal concept of free speech, I think it's fair to say that people are more likely to speak up when they don't think they're going to get ripped apart for it, and in that sense, there is a balance between allowing people to express their opinions in any manner they wish, and keeping the site's atmosphere from being frightening or offputting to people who might read or need to participate in those 'free for all' conversations. There's something to be said for 'play nice in the sandbox' and making a site where diverse voices feel able to collaborate. Keilana (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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?
Harassment is much more targeted and intense than incivility. We all have moments of incivility, whether on Wikipedia or in daily life; we don't all harass people. Harassment is also usually sustained where incivility is not. It's not a bright line at all, it's definitely more of a spectrum. I also don't think incivility per se is the entire problem with attracting and keeping new editors, though I think it's part of the problem; when new editors are treated brusquely or rudely by experienced Wikipedians, they're not motivated to return and continue contributing. Keilana (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 would much rather leave that to the professionals unless it's in an extraordinary circumstance. Most cases don't become even a blip on the radar, so it's usually a moot point. Keilana (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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?
I think that volunteers and professionals should be able to interact just fine; I don't see a problem with differing standards of conduct. The main problem I see as a Wikipedian-in-Residence when I'm acting as a liaison is that professionals need a crash course in Wikipedia culture, which has led to many fruitful collaborations. Keilana (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gerda Arendt

Thank you for stepping forward!

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?
I would close as "no consensus". Keilana (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like short answers, - and the image! What would constitute a consensus (for you) in this case? It is not to be expected that all users will ever agree, which means status quo forever? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like my sweet kitty! :) Consensus is hard to nail down in such a hypothetical situation. I've been involved in some very difficult RfC's (the Jerusalem and Muhammad images RfCs come to mind) and assessing consensus took, in both of those cases, a couple weeks to determine. There was no one thing that tipped it over, but rather careful analysis of arguments and policies and the RfC as a whole helped me find the consensus in the discussion. In neither case did everyone disagree (hoo boy, did they disagree...) but there was a consensus that came out. In this specific case, seeing a few more voices involved would help a lot in determining consensus. Does that help? Keilana (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want along and complicated thing, visit Laurence Olivier, for medium Jean Sibelius. I picked this mercifully short exchange (which was made famous by the RfA it ruined, so is no obscure corner which users don't visit). If you invite more voices you will get those (always the same few names) which you meet in the longer discussions. Perhaps compare the 2013 discussion where 4:2 was treated as a consensus, on simply numerical grounds. Or compare featured articles on operas, such as Carmen (2013 discussion) and Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria (2015 discussion).

Adding: for Joseph, at least one candidate looked at the 2013 discussion, but 2015 is the one I mean, sorry if that was not clear.

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."
AE is a messy place, but I don't think having Arbcom supervise all restrictions is necessarily a positive right now. The Committee is backlogged and overworked, and adding another task to their plate will only delay timely resolution of conflicts. Keilana (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I gave you the impression that arbitration should take care of supervision. Normal admins do arbitration enforcement now and could improve to something better (arbitration enforcement sounds like kindness enforcement to me), - steps "offered" (link above), and the name just a suggestion. I would like to see suggestions on how to get away from spending weeks over an edit that wasn't a problem, at times even made Wikipedia better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Guerillero

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!

Subcommittees

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?
I agree with disbanding the Subcommittee, and I do think, as a functionary, that the functionary team would be equipped to handle its responsibilities. However, this would have to be done with the consent of the functionaries, since foisting work on a group like that is not particularly conducive to getting it done. Keilana (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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?
I would support leaving the BASC as part of ArbCom - this being said as a non-arbitrator, who doesn't know how much work it is behind the scenes and how things are organized. :) If someone's exhausted other avenues of appeal, ArbCom is the logical place for them to end up. I'm not sure the functionaries are the right group for this - the functionaries are more equipped as a group to handle the AUSC. Keilana (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current Disputes and Cases

What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?
It depends on the range in which someone is disruptive. If they can function well in most areas of the encyclopedia and only have one problem area, a topic ban can be an effective way to keep them around on the project in general but also keep them from causing trouble in that one specific area. However, if they've shown that they can't function in several areas or have trouble in a wide range of interactions, a site ban may be more appropriate. Keilana (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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?
I'm not sure we need new and creative solutions to this problem, we need more willingness to deal with the problem with the tools we currently have. That includes a lot of things - keeping people from poking the bear, as it were, via interaction bans, keeping people who just can't work in certain areas out of them, and using site bans as necessary. We need to have a community where people can work together and treat each other with respect. Keilana (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?
I do believe it exists, and the way to handle it is to try to apply sanctions to admins that we would apply to non-admins in similar situations. Keilana (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?
On the one hand, they're useful in establishing that an editor has done something worthy of sanction, but on the other hand they can be a cop-out that doesn't always make the sanctioned editor stop doing whatever it is that prompted the sanction, though that would be the best-case scenario. I would generally prefer to see sanctions that attempt to get at the root of the problem and solve it. Keilana (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insider Baseball

Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?
It does, as long as it's appropriately monitored to avoid it devolving irreparably. Keilana (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pldx1

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) 10:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you're referring to the demographics question. If you don't want to open a new tab for my userpage - I'm a white cis bisexual woman from Chicago, and I believe firmly that deep dish pizza is (a) REAL pizza and (b) the pinnacle of pizza-dom.

Question from Worm That Turned

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, I'm Emily. :) I'm no stranger to internet harassment, and I absolutely expect being an arbitrator to generate more of that. I've been through the wringer on and off line before a couple of times, and I have a great support network on and offline to help out. I also have quite a full life outside of Wikipedia (see: adorable cat at the top of the page.) and know when to step back, get perspective, and do some knitting or read a nice book with a properly brewed cuppa. Keilana (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Yash!

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? Ya sh ! 20:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't happy with how the Lightbreather case ended - I discussed it a little more below. Keilana (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Johanna

Hi, I just have a few questions, although you seem like a very qualified candidate upon first glance. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had any major disputes on-wiki? If so, how did you handle them, and if not, how have you avoided conflict?
I've been a Wikipedian for enough time now that it would be a bit odd if I hadn't had any disputes. I generally try to handle disputes by being polite and reasonable, and trying to achieve a consensus. I also try to take time before I say anything on-wiki, especially if I'm upset - taking a little time away from the computer or explaining the situation to a non-Wikipedian friend does a lot to give perspective and calm things down. Keilana (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any instances on-wiki where you've had to work out complex issues and what were the outcomes of your mediation?
I've been involved in quite a few - the two biggest ones, I think, were the Jerusalem RfC and the Muhammad Images RfC. They both ended in a consensus - it's kind of hard to tl;dr them here, so I'll just link: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images.

Have you followed the progression of any ArbCom cases, and are there instances where you would do something differently?
Since I haven't been on the Committee, I haven't followed every single case in detail (though of course I would were I on ArbCom) but I follow a fair few. I do think the Lightbreather case could have been handled better. Keilana (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Beyond My Ken

Do you believe that SPI is the only legitimate mechanism for determining the nature of suspicious editors? If so, what do you advise long-term editors with a good feel for behavioral patterns to do about questionable editors when there is no clear candidate for who the master might be?
SPI doesn't have to be the only place, but I think it's a logical place, since it's where most of the editors with knowledge about socks tend to congregate. Keilana (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from GrammarFascist

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 answered these earlier (see previous section) :) Keilana (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please list at least one pro and one con of having non-administrators serve on ArbCom.
The obvious pro is that they have a different perspective from admins and having diverse voices and perspectives on the Committee is very important. The main con is that they don't have experience working in administrative areas so they might not be as familiar as other arbitrators. Keilana (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, Keilana. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 01:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Brustopher

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.

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?
It depends on if either account is connected to their identity in real life, among other considerations but in general, it's not outing. My main concern with that would be it being an impersonator and someone getting unfairly sanctioned due to the actions of their impersonator.
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?
Obviously this isn't hypothetical at all. I wasn't happy with the way the Lightbreather case was handled, ArbCom needs to consider harassment when handing out sanctions, since in this situation her actions were a reaction to something that shouldn't have happened in the first place. Harassment and outing both need to be treated strictly, and in this case, the harassment Lightbreather was subjected to was unacceptable, and she shouldn't have been banned for reacting to that. If we want to keep women around (and yes, women are more likely to be harassed than men) we need to help protect women from harassment and help them maintain their privacy when they so wish. The FOF isn't inappropriate per se but I don't think it's enough to ban given the circumstances - what she did was technically outing, yes, but not worthy of sanction because of the mitigating factors. Keilana (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Peter Damian

What is or was your relationship with WMF? You were a Wikipedian in residence. Have you received any grants from the WMF? Thanks
My Wikipedian-in-Residence role is not connected to the WMF. As a member of the board of Wikimedia DC, I've been a part of that organization's grant requests during my tenure. I have also received a PEG and IEG.

Question by Müdigkeit

How many hours per week do you plan to work on the Arbitration Committee?--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However many are necessary, I'm hearing estimates of 10-15 hours a week from current/former arbs and that sounds reasonable. Keilana (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Wikimandia

Many editors were unhappy with the results of the recent Neelix fiasco, in which the AC closed the case as soon as Neelix resigned as an admin, despite the fact that 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. This led to accusations of a double standard for admins and regular editors. (If a non-admin had done the same, there could be no such easy dismissal as we don't have tools to resign). 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. There was significant support for at least a topic ban at the ANI. Do you believe a topic ban or other measure should have been applied in this case?

Question from SageRad

What would you think of an anti-bullying task force as a way to curb long-term problematic bullying behaviors by setting up a group of volunteers willing to check out situations and to advocate for people who feel like they are being bullied by other editors?

Questions from Ryk72

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

Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.

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?
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?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of WP:BOOMERANG? Would you support it's retention, restriction or abolition? Why?
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?
Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it's not, I definitely can't make a blanket judgment.
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 like the 500/30 limit and the mandated RfC's as solutions in particularly contentious topic areas. The 500/30 restriction is a decent start at stopping 'flooding' of the discussions; having a technical implementation could be useful but I'm awful at programming-type things so I would have no idea how to even make that possible. Keilana (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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?
ArbCom is meant to be a 'last resort' place to resolve disputes, so if someone's behavior is a problem and it hasn't been fixed, it should go to ArbCom. Keilana (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 do think cases need to be streamlined, and this might be a solution worth trying, sure. I'd be interested to see how it works in practice - and it might address Arb burnout too, which would be a nice plus. Or it could create a new bureaucratic process/snafu for people to work through...depends on how it's implemented. Keilana (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Bzuk

Not that I feel it is incorrect, but can you further develop your hypothesis on the role of women in ArbCom? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bzuk, sorry it took so long for me to reply - two term papers and a week with family left me with very little time. In general, I believe that a diversity of voices and perspectives is key for our community, and ArbCom is no different. Best, Keilana (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Blackmane

This is a hypothetical that is somewhat based on real threads that have occurred on WP:AN and WP:ANI in the past. An editor who self identifies as having a mental disability or disorder has been indefinitely blocked for a variety of violations, take your pick of edit warring, NPA, disruption, CIR, POINT, Godwin's etc, and is now seeking to return to editing. Quite a few members of the community have sought to advise this editor on why they were blocked but struggle to get the editor to understand. I'd like to hear your thoughts about how Wikipedia works with those who suffer from such disorders. This is an open ended, and deliberately vague, question that will no doubt be difficult to answer, but is more for me, and presumably other editors, to get a grasp of your thoughts. Blackmane (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Kevin Gorman

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) 02:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]