Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Timtrent/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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?
Arbitration does not require sanctions provided agreement can be reached. Submitting to arbitration implies a willingness to reach agreement. Being dragged to arbitration implies that sanctions might be necessary. Note the use of the subjunctive. There is no inevitability. The role, surely, is to solve intractably difficult problems. I do not see it as a role that will always require sanctions as a remedy. This has to be set, of course, against our policies and guidelines. One cannot work towards an agreement in isolation from those.
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 is a fairly barbed statement to make to someone when expecting them to cast a vote, but it is real life. That person making this statement is expressing an opinion, something they are entitled to do. They are assertive, and civil. I would have to see context to make a full judgement about whether they are involved. Without context, I deem it to be neutral of involvement, albeit with a sting in the tail
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 believe in justice being seen to be done. That includes offering reasonable time on a case by case basis for those unavoidably away from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a hobby. We do not commit ourselves to being online all day every day, and we have real lives.
It seems challenging that one may only have 1,000 words to rebut many submissions of 1,000 words. I would anticipate judging a request to exceed that limit on its merits, but am yet to be persuaded that a blanket extension is required.
The wording of your question places a link between those unavoidably detained and those wishing for more than 1,000 words to reply to multiple 1,000 word submissions. I do not see these as linked and have answered each separately. Those separate answers also serve if the link was truly your intention

Question from Smallbones

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) 17:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I detest and despise bullying in all its forms. I note the putative hostility to women, have not seen it myself, and dislike it equally with any hostility to any group, even towards a group whose aims/ make-up/ etc I disagree with. That should not be read as my in any way disagreeing with/disliking women, but I am sure you have worked that out.
I do not believe an arbitrator's role is to be proactive in entering the fray in their role of arbitrator, so taking serious steps is limited to those cases brought by others. I expect to examine the evidence and to be as even handed as I am able in my deliberations. I have already been active as an ordinary editor in the area of seeking to influence the cessation of bullying.
Is this one of my top two priorities? As an editor, it is there or thereabouts, when I see it. Again, I make no distinction between any demographic of editor. If elected as an arbitrator I see fair and even handed handling of the case as my overriding responsibility.
I see your question as an important one regarding my character, but I am unsure whether it is directly related to a role as an elected member of ArbCom.

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?
That requires more information than you have given me, but you have said that the usernames are far more specific than Foo and Bar. If they are as generic as John Smith and Jane Jones that does complicate the issue, though, those are only "fairly specific". The issue, surely, is to do with harm caused to Foo and to Bar, and whether that harm and the causing of it is in WIkipedia's jurisdiction anyway. I am not keen on things external to Wikipedia being ruled on by Wikipedia. However this has been brought to Wikipedia by use of talk pages.
The answer is that I will need to study policy should such a case be brought, and to satisfy myself that it is within our jurisdiction before offering an opinion.
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 obviously current at present and was directly quoted in another editor's questions, above. The issue that I see is that you are asking me to make a statement now on a closed case that might be brought to appeal. I know you have phrased it anonymously, but it is too similar to real life to be distinguishable. I cannot make a statement on it either way without influencing a vote by the supporters of Alice or her opponents, and it would be unfair of me to do so. Should I be elected and should an appeal be brought, I will give it even handed attention.

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?
I gave that some serious thought before throwing my hat into the ring. I'm hard to rile, even tempered, understand the difference between insults and genuine criticism. My user talk page has a statement on it: "I do not remove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, even if vile, as they speak more against the attacker than against me."
I imagine, if elected, I will receive some vitriol however well I perform. One side or the other in a dispute is likely to be upset however well one does. My hope and expectation is to arbitrate, and to do so fairly and transparently and within the policies that we, the community, have laid down. ArbCom is not, or should not be, judge, jury and executioner. It, as a committee, and its members individually, are responsible to Wikipedia as a community, and are entrusted that task by the community. Remembering that and working to that ought to minimise the issues you mention. It will not always achieve it. Vitriol will pass.

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 will consider that if elected. The answer will require thought and consensus
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 appreciate the concept of those with specialist skills or knowledge working in specialist areas. It troubles me that ArbCom is often viewed some sort of ogre-like body where one goes for help at one's own peril. ArbCom problems must not always be disciplinary ones. The review of appeals does, however, seem to fit well within the arena of ArbCom. What would I do about the BASC? Learn about it and its members and consider whether it is fit for purpose. If it is, continue it, if not, seek to alter it

I have updated this answer because matters have overtaken BASC and it has been disbanded. This will merit serious study if I am elected. It is for the incoming committee to make decisions about whether it is required or not. My view is that it is much more use existing and working than no longer existing. Potentially any successor sub-committee requires a different remit, tightly defined and with an objective for quick and correct throughput.

Current Disputes and Cases

What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?
I see a project wide ban as the absolute last resort. I require repeated transgressions of a serious nature for me to consider a ban, and I need to be sure that there is very little, if any, hope of the editor redeeming themselves.
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?
What needs to be addressed is not the remedies available to ArbCom in these cases, but the reason this has reached ArbCom in the first place. We do not need new and creative ways for this. We need to push cases back that should not have arrived at ArbCom in the first place, that should have been handled elsewhere. You list a set of tools, yet you have not mentioned discussion and true arbitration, where both/all parties agree to work towards a properly arbitrated agreement.
Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?
If we define the problem thus, and I take the description from your link, it is stated that "conduct that would get a non-administrator banned only gets an administrator desysopped" and I am basing my answer upon that definition.
Administrators are not special editors except insofar as they are given extra responsibilities, but they are not given extra rights. Granted, there is a chance, when given extra responsibilities, to abuse those and the toolset that comes with them, but that is not different from abusing ordinary editing privileges as a behaviour.
I acknowledge that an admin abusing an admin role may have a greater adverse effect than a non admin abusing editing privileges, but I am considering behaviour only, not the outcome of that behaviour.
I know it is said that admins, once appointed, especially when in role for a long time, are seen as fireproof, but I have no experience of that. If it is as stated then I view that as a thing to be dealt with.
In conclusion of this answer, if an ordinary editor would be banned for a behaviour, then an admin exhibiting that same behaviour should be banned as well. The converse is also true. If an ordinary editor would not receive a ban then nor should the admin. I believe in equality of treatment for every editor.
Fitness of the admin to retain admin rights is a secondary issue to the immediate issue of a potentially unwelcome behaviour and requires a separate decision.
Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?
I think you will judge from my answer(s) to prior questions that sanctions are by no means the only outcome. Sometimes they are inevitable, but arbitration is intended to reach agreement, not to punish. When agreement is impossible, or agreement, once reached, is broken, I feels that admonishments and warnings have probably run their course

Insider Baseball

Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?
I have no experience of it and cannot offer an opinion

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.
This question would be unlawful in a job interview in my jurisdiction, and would result in a major employment tribunal case, or worse. It is not admissible in an interview for a volunteer role either. All I choose to reveal of myself is on my user page. Diversity for the sake of it is a mantra I cannot subscribe to. Treat me on my merits, please, not on my membership or not of a demongraphic
Please list at least one pro and one con of having non-administrators serve on ArbCom.
I see neither pros nor cons. To me an editor is an editor. Non admins are unable to see deleted information, but can always be shown it during proceedings. I expect ArbCom to be populated by a set of editors, admins or not, who are working for the English Language Wikipedia community in a particular role. Admin/non admin status is irrelevant to that.

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 Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?
Ah, the problem is that I have an opinion on inboxes, though have no horse isn this race. Because I have an opinion regarding inboxes based on a common look and feel across Wikipedia then I cannot consider stepping up and closing this. My opinion would give undue emphasis to one side or the other side of the arguments. I cannot therefore offer any valid rationale for closing one way or the other. I have watched bitter rows over inboxes, for and against, and consider it something that is better discussed at WP:MOS than in individual articles or within individual projects.

You will have to deal with colleague arbitrators who ruled exactly the opposite and forced us to go from article to article. - I would like to see how you would evaluate a consensus, looking at number of people who comment and strength of argument, and be fair to both sides. Can you point me to a past instance where you did that?

A: I had a feeling you would ask further. I have never closed a Wikipedia discussion, not even a tiny one. I am perfectly capable of weighing the evidence in a discussion and equally capable of knowing when it comes out as not having achieved a consensus.

I have to trust you, but it's hard not knowing you. I noticed Fiddle Faddle but don't remember where, - a good sign, you were not on my nerves ;) - I still think that even with a point of view, you could say something about the merits of argument of that short discussion, but will not press further.

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."
But that is not what he said. He said "... if I were to go just by the editors I've worked with, particularly on FA/GAs I'd be inclined to think that it was about 50/50 between males and females". I understand that you, too, have or have had sanctions against you, and can imagine you consider them to be onerous. I think I may have interacted with you at the time, perhaps on a related matter.
I think the first line by L. P. Hartley of The Go-Between is relevant here. If you choose to vote for me I hope you will do so on my merits, merits that I agree include answering your questions, but which I think need to be judged on a far broader base.

Regardless of the exact wording, I believe the edit was unproblematic and didn't require any attention, certainly not a block, which unfortunately can be said of many other edits I have seen at AE. Do you have ideas to improve AE, a timesink detrimental to content creation as it is, - THAT was the question. More precisely: do you think I would be improved by a block? You can go by my suggestions to give me a feeling.

A: I will not offer an opinion on something at an election that I might be asked later to arbitrate upon. So, Do I think you would be improved by a block? Is anyone improved by a block? Blocks are stated to be preventative not punitive. That is a hard tightrope to balance on, but no block improves the person blocked. The question has to be whether the block, in preventing an action, improves Wikipedia. Some do. Nipping vandalism in the bud improves Wikipedia. Preventing unsuitable behaviour (as judged by consensus) improves Wikipedia. But none of this improves the blocked person.

Thank you. You can perhaps see from my clumsy question that my experience in being blocked is zero. It was the one who blocked who brought up "their behavior will not improve regardless, simply because they genuinely don't believe there's anything to improve in the first place." - which makes the block even stranger in my eyes. I worked on Kafka, did you know?

A: I am afraid Kafka and I are complete strangers. Blocking cannot improve behaviour unless it is punitive. Even then I doubt it is useful as a tool to influence behaviour. I do not wish it to be punitive. Discussion can improve behaviour. Unwillingness to engage in discussion tends to show that the behaviour will not improve. Ever extending blocks will prevent it from affecting Wikipedia. As a paradox, those appear punitive.

Not sure that I understand that. Simply: if a block cannot be expected to change behaviour to the better, why block? Can we find better ways than arbitration "enforcement" (which sounds like kindness enforcement to me)?

A: I must be missing something in your question, because I think I have answered it already. A block is preventative. Behaviour changing is by discussion and agreement. If discussion and/or agreement fail then blocking to prevent that behaviour from befouling Wikipedia is inevitable and a shame. Am I answering the question you have asked, or are we missing in the middle here?

Sorry, some days I miss being a native speaker of English more than others. What would the above mentioned block prevent? To my understanding, the comment, paraphrased a bit pointy by me, quoted by you, was in no way blockworthy, and if it can be interpreted as a violation of a restriction, something is wrong with the restriction, or the look at it, no? As its not a singular event (see 2014, "clearly a violation", really??), I would like to know your ideas to make better restrictions, and/or supervise in a more human way they they are kept.

A: Light dawns. Thank you. I have also had more time to consider your original question. I think there is the potential, for example, to consider mentoring as part of the outcome of some form of action, including action by venues/fora prior to the use of ArbCom. This would require excellent volunteer mentors who would need to accept that mentoring may fail with some individuals who are judged to need it. I will not comment on the live scenario you have used in your initial question, though.

Thank you, I didn't request a comment, only ideas ;)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Biblioworm

Do you have experience in successfully resolving disputes, either on-wiki or off-wiki?
I was, once, employed as the CEO of a 50 person business. We had many disputes, sometimes with customers who were in payment default. This was a livelihood threatening situation, not just for me, but for my staff. I didn't always succeed in retrieving the full debt, one never can. But I succeeded more often than not. I doubt, however, that is what you are after.
Early in my editing here I chose a difficult arena: Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. The article was a mess, and was riddled with POV and OR. I chose to act as one of two or three of what I might call 'article referees' (in the sporting sense - the guy with the whistle and the rule book). I arrived there in around September 2006, and you will find it all in the archives. As a green editor here I learned a lot, learned fast, and was able to assist the editors whose work constructed the article with keeping their thought processes clear. We avoided it's becoming a dispute. It came close at times.
There is a regular dispute over the naming of Suicide of Foo, Death of Foo articles where I make the case that the articles are not biographies, not memorials, and are about the event, only covering the person insofar as they add value to the event. Often this has been very close to the event when those grieving are trying to create a memorial and others are trying to create a news/blame piece. This is a difficult area requiring an assertive approach coupled with a light touch.
How successful I have been in these areas is for others to judge.
One major area of dispute resolution is to foster in the disputing parties a peacefulness, a freedom from the need to be combative. We get that from time to time with editors who are insisting that their treasured, and often WP:COI and horribly WP:POV drafts be put through at WP:AFC. I have reasonable success in instilling a workmanlike attitude in them such that they work on the issues, not on the people who have declined their drafts. For those unfamiliar with AfC, COI is tolerated up to but not past the point of acceptance of a draft (custom and practice rather than rule driven). While one might argue that "this is not a dispute" the reverse is true. The editor is at loggerheads with Wikipedia and, often, anyone who gets in their way. It is not Formal Wikipedia Dispute Resolution, with initial capitals. There is no forming of and interpreting of consensus. This is not a dispute resolution forum. This is good old fashioned building of a working relationship intended to solve problems. This type of work prevents formal disputes from starting and escalating. It also comes back to handling real or potential incivility. This is a necessary skill for true arbitration.

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 ! 10:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to go back to L. P. Hartley and the first line of The Go Between. The past is finished. We are in the present. In a moment we have the future. Little good comes of harking back to the past as if it were some sort of ghoul or some sort of angel. However well or less well previous incarnations have done, a new team has the job to do better.

Optional Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

You state that you do not wish to be an admin.While it is not necessary for every arb to Block,delete,protect,oversight or use Checkuser as others can do it. But How will get access to deleted material which is necessary for every Arb as in most of the cases evidence involves deleted material.This is absolutely essential to take a decision.?
There is a discussion currently held by others with WMF which appears to be likely to grant discretionary access to the toolkit for the duration of appointment, with the caveat that as a notional admin who has not gone through RfA one is expected only to use the tools for the purpose of the role. I am watching that with mild interest. If elected I am sure relevant arrangements will be made.

Questions from Antony–22

In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it?
I wonder why civility needs to be enforced. My grandmother said "Politeness costs nothing." I was told when I was impolite and I learned to apologise when I was rude. The concept of free speech is oft misunderstood, mostly by those who wish to impose their will upon others. To have the right of free speech one takes on the responsibility to use that with wisdom and politeness. You and I may speak freely with the proviso that we are not uncivil. We may have enormous disagreements, even become heated, but those are not uncivil. I see no detriment to the freedom of speech by being required to use it with civility. When we edit Wikipedia we make a contract to abide by the rules. Civility is one of them. Sometimes, to prevent what the community has agreed to be unhelpful behaviour, blocks must be issued.
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?
I don't think it needs to be pointed out. They are wholly different, though one may include the other. It is amazing how civil someone can appear to be while harassing another. But your question is not about that.
How much does incivility drive folks away? I think 'casual incivility' can have a very detrimental effect. In my work at WP:AFC I am trying to help less experienced reviewers learn to show new editors, a population I judge to be most vulnerable to casual incivility, with much more rationale and reasoning what they need to do to enable their treasured yet imperfect drafts to be accepted. I feel that brevity of a 'decline' of a draft may contribute to their quitting at once. I see that as 'casual incivility' almost certainly not meant as such, but perceived as such by the recipient.
There is a difference between the casual, accidental incivility and the venom in a calculated incivility. I expect that to drive editors away, too; walking away from a fight is far less unpleasant than working out the best way to react to it.
Harassment is challenging, the more so since I have seen the harassed person victimised still further when they blow the whistle, and by the people they have blown the whistle to. I expect that crosses into Wikipedia as well as the outside world. But harassment is a very different behaviour, it is bullying. Bullying we need to stamp out by each of us calling it out when we see it and deprecating it, and doing so with quiet civility. The bully needs to learn that the community will not have it.
With regard to the gender gap, I acknowledge that fewer women edit than men, fewer teen girls than teen boys. I have seen that people speak of discrimination against our female editors. I think we, the community, need to stand tall and say individually that we will not stand for discrimination and bullying, and need to do it root and branch, not say it from the seemingly lofty pillar of the arcane world of ArbCom. I hope that this will increase the female editor population. It is when people say "Enough!" that things change, not when a decree is made from a notional lofty perch
I'm not sure I answered your questions, though. I rather think I got carried away
Arbcom's actions have come under srutiny from the outside press lately, often leading to articles with factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. 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 on the circumstances leading to the current case Arbitration enforcement 2. Write that primer below. (The press likes succinctness too, so no more than a few paragraphs worth of text.)
I am neither going to comment on any current, nor prior case during an election.

Because it came up elsewhere, I'd like to clarify that this question does not cover the proposed or actual decision, but about how you would help a reporter understand what happened before the case was filed. I'm not sure if this affects your answer at all, but I wanted to be sure to make the same clarification to everyone. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A: Thank you for the clarification. It does not affect my answer.)

Okay, more generally, do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under scrutiny? 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 me made more effective?
I view active contact with the press as being something to be performed by WMF. This is not the same thing as the press using Wikipedia's pages to draw their own conclusions. Nor is it the same thing as an official statement for all made on an official page. I do not see any editor in any role creating press statements unless sanctioned officially, by which I mean by WMF. If ArbCom has been granted that sanction then I will become aware of it if elected, and work within it.
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?
To me an editor is an editor, even, perhaps especially, admin, bureaucrat, ArbCom member or functionary. I wonder if i have missed any roles. I make no distinction between paid editors, academics who edit and people like me, the amateur who feels he has something to add. Many people like me are also academics. I look for excellence in editing and seek to guide folk from disparate backgrounds towards excellence. You say "This is perhaps causing some angst that the community...." Is it?
We do have a bad habit of failing to understand the editor from academe. To help address that I wrote the first drafts of Wikipedia:Relationships with academic editors, which I am pleased to see others have edited unmercifully. It goes some way towards addressing our behavioural issues.
You say "many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural, even transgressive nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge." I had never thought of those who contribute content as cultural revolutionaries before I saw this. I still do not, though I am sure some are. We all edit here for our own reasons. I am not part of your many. I am not from academe, I am not a professional editor, I am simply a seeker after knowledge. Creating and editing articles is a pleasant hobby that allows me to gather knowledge. I had no interest in suffragettes until I visited the deserted village of Tide Mills, for example, but researching that led me to all sorts of places I never imagined I would go, and the creation or editing of articles I never imagined would interest me.
That gives some background to me, rather than answering your question. If you mean "Should ArbCom somehow make different folks coexist peacefully and edit collaboratively?" then my answer is that it is, instead, a matter for each individual community member. We each need to behave with common courtesy and decency to every editor, especially those whose editing is not our normal style. They need to be guided by each of us, the ordinary editors, into understanding how we work, what is acceptable, what is unacceptable. We need to act, each of us, with pride in our work and to pass that pride on to all other editors, and to show them that Wikipedia's standards might be different from their more usual environment, yet are maintained with pride, and that they serve our purpose. The regular editors I come into contact with appear to me by their actions to uphold those standards

Question from Rcsprinter123

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?
ArbCom's role is to resolve the difficult issues that others can not or will not resolve on the English Language Wikipedia. It works for the community with authority to do so delegated to it by the community. It is necessary because the community has deemed it to be necessary by reaching consensus on the matter
The change I would like to see is based upon emotion. Far too often I have seen a fear of taking a problem to Arbcom, or 'ArbCom' being used as a verb as in "I will ArbCom you!" To me this says that ArbCom is perceived as an ogre in some quarters, with editors being afraid to avail themselves of its services. I wish to see that dismantled.
That can only be dismantled from within, and by making decisions showing that justice, where justice is meted out, has been seen to be done, and seen even by those receiving unwelcome news. I do not say that this has not been done in the past; I say that whatever has been done in the past needs to be done better in the future.
Arbcom, if it is to function better and better, requires the best of us to serve it, yet very few stand for election. We cannot select the best for the project from very few candidates. I fear some of the best may be put off by the ogre-like reputation that seems to stick to it. Eggs and chickens.

Question by Müdigkeit

How many hours per week do you plan to work on the Arbitration Committee?--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient.

Questions from SilkTork

Well done on putting your name forward. My questions are all on your non-admin status; that has stirred up some interest as you seem a potentially good candidate; though not having gone through a RfA first is going to hold some people back, and others have said they will oppose you purely on that point. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do not wish to be an admin, though you wish to be a member of the Arbitration Committee. What do you see as the differences between the two roles, such that you want to do one role but not the other? Is your opinion changing as you go through this election process?
ArbCom is intended to be populated by editors without any particular qualification about their class. To be a candidate I simply have to be an editor in good standing. Why on earth would I need a mop and bucket and cleaning products to be an arbitrator?
If you are elected on a mandate less than 65%, and are offered the admin tools, would you accept them?
This is not a question for me but for those who may appoint me. I will accept consensus, as must any of us. If the tools are granted to me I expect them to be removed without discussion or notice at the end of the office period.
If you are elected, but are not offered the admin tools, would you submit to a RfA in order to acquire the tools that will assist you and your fellow Committee members in carrying out your role?
Why? The things I need to see will all be shown to me. I will have signed the relevant confidentiality agreements.
A Would you consider going though an RfA now to help alleviate the concerns of some members of the community?
Were I to do that, which is a thing I do not intend to do, I would relinquish the tools as soon as any putative ArbCom period was over. So what on earth would be the point?
If unsuccessful, what then were I to have been elected already to ArbCom? Do we hold the ArbCom election all over again?
This is all about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. We are meant to be constructing a useful encyclopaedia, not engaging in navel gazing about an ever increasing bureaucracy
Those who choose to vote will and should vote as they see fit. If they feel that all members must be admins then that is how they should vote. The converse is also true. I am not standing as a "non admin" and have realised that I must make this clear. I am standing as an editor, no more and no less. I am not a protest candidate against admins, nor a poster child for non admins. I am just a plain and simple editor of Wikipedia.

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?
Has it?
I have said elsewhere, and reasonably often, that Wikipedia started as glorious anarchy and freedom. We have codified that freedom with rules, hierarchies, levels and class of editor that we have chosen to create out of nothing. We must adore bureaucracy, for, if we did not, we would not have created it.
To be sure, we need folk who ether enjoy or are willing to keep the place clean and tidy. We need simple processes to help them prevent those who would destroy Wikipedia from doing so.
But gaol as a metaphor? Are you sure? Surely it is more like a wonderfully delegated totalitarian state? Bizarrely it works pretty well. That which does not is up to every interested editor to change.
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?
I live in a nation with an adversarial judicial system. I am thus used to it and see no inherent problems with it.
However, folk fail to understand that arbitration is also a part of the legal processes. Not everything has to go to a court of law.
If it is a dispute that is brought to a dispute solving forum it is hard to bring the disputing parties back to a place where they might be encouraged to and agree to work collegially, or, at least, not trample on each other. I go back to one of my earliest answers that penalties are by no means the only outcome from a dispute. Make no mistake, I will vote to apply penalties where I view them as essential, but I prefer to deploy penalty-free solutions.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of WP:BOOMERANG? Would you support it's retention, restriction or abolition? Why?
To the new editor claiming some sort of remedy for some sort of real or imagined injustice, the boomerang can come as a shock. It is useful insofar as it tends to ensure that all facets of an accusation, including the accuser, are examined. It is difficult when a new editor perceives a legitimate hurt, and requests assistance, even stridently, and has the wrath of folk yelling "nah, nah, we got you for daring to complain" poured upon them.
Do I support its retention? Yes. Do we need to limit it? See WP:BITE.
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?
Improper or suspected improper use of these needs to be raised on the talk page of the person perceived to be misusing them in the first instance. Any further action must depend on further information given or refused when that enquiry is made.
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 think you know already that I will not comment on cases.
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?
It needs to be made clear to this editor that continuing down this path will mean that they are choosing to spend increasing amounts of time unable to edit Wikipedia, because, to prevent their behaviour, blocks of increasing length will be applied. This is not a punishment. They need to understand that there will come a time when they have opted not to edit Wikipedia ever again, and that this is something in their complete control. We, by which I mean the community, will simply implement their decision to cease editing for those periods.
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 think a fraction is not useful. I will only work with cases where I believe I can add value. I only wish ArbCom to take cases where it can add value, whether I can add value to the case or not myself. Surely that is the thing to encourage other Arbs to do? This implicitly reduces individual caseload and overall committee caseload.

Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]