Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Ks0stm/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?
Personally I think it's possible to open a case without presuming that sanctions will be necessary. To me it would be quite possible, albeit rare, to have a case opened and it result only in reminders, warnings, or admonishments. However, if a situation has reached the point of needing an arbitration case it is likely (though not inherently presumed or inevitable) that some form of sanctions (editor or discretionary) will be necessary.
Do minor sanctions such as limited topic bans require specific findings that each editor named has violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines in that topic area? If an immediately prior WP:AN/I discussion did not show any support for a topic ban, should ArbCom impose one without specific findings of any violation of a policy or guideline?
For this question (both parts), I stand by my answer from last year: "I believe that if a sanction is to be passed against an editor there should be a finding of fact proposed, and preferably passed, showing misconduct by the editor. Proposing sanctions against editors without proposing findings of fact showing misconduct leads to the impression that the editor is being sanctioned without having engaged in behavior that is sanctionable."
Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?
I'd be silly if I tried to. I don't feel that I could make the kind of informed decisions required to vote in a case without being able to read the evidence and workshop pages, and as such if I did not have time to read them I would mark myself inactive or abstain during voting.
"Stare decisis" has not been the rule for ArbCom decisions. For general rulings and findings, is this position still valid, or ought people be able to rely on a consistent view of policies and guidelines from case to case?
Heh, for the third year in a row, my answer is the same: Prior arbitration decisions should not be binding, but may be used as precedent. However, one would hope that arbitrators interpret policies and guidelines relatively consistently from case to case; it wouldn't do to have ArbCom interpret a policy or guideline completely differently from one case to the next.
Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?
I'm going to quote my answer from last year on this one, as it's stayed the same: "I believe that many of Wikipedia's policies are based upon the five pillars (regardless that many of the policies existed before the five pillars). I believe that the five pillars could be used in committee findings, but that it would be much preferable to use the applicable specific policies."
Many cases directly or indirectly involve biographies. How much weight should the committee give to WP:BLP and related policies in weighing principles, findings and decisions?
Again quoting my answer from last year: "The committee should be able to use the BLP policy in their decisions the same as they would any other policy, but they must take great care to not stray into making true content decisions when deciding on BLP issues."
How would you personally define a "faction" in terms of Wikipedia editors? Is the behaviour of "factions" intrinsically a problem, or are the current policies sufficient to prevent any faction from improperly controlling the tenor of a Wikipedia article? If the committee determines that a "faction" rather than an individual editor is at fault in a behaviour issue, how would you suggest handling such a finding?
Well, same as last year I still can't really speak to the concept of "factions"; I just never come across them in the topic areas in which I edit. As such, I'll be honest, I really don't know if current policies are sufficient to keep "factions" from "improperly controlling the tenor of a Wikipedia article". On the whole, though, I would still prefer that the Arbitration Committee address any misbehavior directly, on an editor or topic area basis, regardless of whether it was orchestrated by a faction.
Thank you. Collect (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda Arendt

Thanks for being ready to offer your service! Last year, I asked 3 questions, this year it's only one: How would you comment in this case of arbitration enforcement? Hint: My so far favourite comment has four words ;)
That edit by Pigsonthewing walks a dangerous line, one that he should probably not dance so close to. However, despite my original reaction was that it was a blatant violation, upon reading the comments at the request I find that I agree ~~strongly~~ with Fut. Perf., in particular the following quote: "The simple fact is that it was obviously meant to be an infobox. The previous editor wanted there to be an infobox, and had tried to insert one; Potw helped him finish the job. The intention behind Potw's restriction is to stop him from alienating other editors by pushing for the insertion of boxes in articles where others have previously chosen not to have any. Penalizing this edit would be counter to the spirit of this sanction."
(Only if you like one more.) I don't understand what you quoted saying you agree with: "The intention behind Potw's restriction is to stop him from alienating other editors". The restriction is for articles he writes himself just the same. Do you have an idea what might be the intention behind that, the "spirit of this sanction"?
To start off, I'll note that I don't know the circumstances that led up to Pigsonthewing's sanction, though if I remember correctly it was a result of the Infoboxes arbitration case. When evaluating this AE request I'm taking into account only what I see on that AE request. That being said, I'll admit that "The intention behind Potw's restriction is to stop him from alienating other editors" doesn't make a lick of sense; it's the rest of the quote on either end of that sentence that I was trying to emphasize, though perhaps not as strongly as it came out (I've edited my original answer to reflect this). The "spirit" or "intention" of any sanction, including the one in this instance, is (or should be) to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. I don't think that in this case Pigsonthewing was adding an infobox so much as formatting one that was already there. I could yet be convinced either way on that...my opinion as to whether what he did constitutes "adding" is a very tenuous one...but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because what he did, whatever it was, was clearly not done in a way that caused or was meant to cause disruption to the encyclopedia (i.e. that violated the spirit of his sanction). If this had been a more clear cut case of him violating the letter of his sanction (where a reasonable argument could not be made that he was formatting an already existing infobox or that the original author had intended to put in an infobox) then I would be much less likely to give him the benefit of the doubt, but in cases where whether there's been a violation of the letter of a sanction is so clouded I tend to give more weight to the spirit of the sanction, which in this case I do not believe he violated.

If you need any more clarification, feel free to ask...I sometimes find it hard to put my thoughts into word form, and what results when I try can sometimes be a bit confusing to others.

Thank you. Nobody could so far explain to me the spirit of that sanction, you did well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gamaliel

Civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. Do you think we have a problem with civility on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Do you think civility can and should be enforced on Wikipedia as vigorously as the other pillars like NPOV are? Why or why not?
Hmmm. Civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars, yes, but Wikipedia has a more specific and relevant policy, no personal attacks. I believe that NPA should be enforced, but there are issues with consistency in application since what constitutes a personal attack is very subjective and can vary from person to person. As far as there being a civility problem on Wikipedia, personally it's once in a blue moon that I come across incivility, but I've heard others say we have systematic issues with civility. On the whole, I'm not sure if we have a systematic problem, but I'm sure there are more issues per capita than I normally come across, so I'd say that problems with civility, while present, are probably not as widespread as problems involving several of our other core policies (think WP:V or WP:NPOV).
Wikipedia has a undeniable gender gap in terms of who contributes to Wikipedia and what topics are covered. Do you think this is a significant problem for Wikipedia? Why or why not? What, if anything, can and should the Committee do to address this?
As much as I'd be happy to answer this question, I am going to politely decline to do so at this time since I am currently an arbitration clerk for the ongoing Gender Gap case.

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Everyking

How do you feel about the ArbCom's practice of deciding cases through private deliberation? Would you push for greater transparency, up to the point of holding all discussions on-wiki, so long as sensitive personal information is not revealed? Would you be prepared to make a personal pledge to make all of your own comments in public, unless sensitive personal information is involved?
Greater transparency can be a double-edged sword. I believe that if the arbs choose to discuss something(s) in private then there's probably a good reason they're not discussing it in public. (However, I can't say for certain because, having never been on the committee, I am unaware for the most part of what business they conduct in private and why.) While I support full transparency in theory, in practice I wouldn't be in favor of holding all discussions on-wiki and would not be willing to pledge against making comments off-wiki. However, I would support the arbs being more forthcoming about what they have discussed off-wiki, so long as it does not pertain to sensitive matters.

Everyking (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. As a break from past years, I am not assigning "points" for the answers, but the answers to the questions, along with other material that I find in my research, will be what my guide is based on. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

What originally led you to join Wikipedia? What do you do on the site on a day-to-day basis?
Mmmm 2007 was a busy severe weather year, and I got involved editing severe weather related articles. I didn't really become fully active for a couple years, though, and I don't remember what caused me to suddenly become fully active. On a day-to-day basis I'm likely to do anything from admin at AIV, UAA, or CSD to write a good article; it just depends on what activity catches my attention that given day.
What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences?
Most of my experience with consensus and collaborating has come in small doses scattered throughout the wiki, as I'm not the most prolific collaborator on articles (all of my GAs I improved by myself) or contributor to discussion noticeboards like the village pump or ANI. However, when I am collaborating and consensus building one thing in particular that I make it a point to keep an open mind about others' opinions and ideas, even if I don't agree with them. For all I know, after I consider others' opinions and ideas I may like them better than my own! A good example of this is in Gerda Arendt's question above. Basically, if you keep an open mind to all possible solutions and results then you are much more likely to achieve a consensus than if you keep a closed mind and reject all opinions and ideas other than your own.
Case management has been an issue in many elections, with some cases stalling for weeks with little reply, and others coming to a quickly-written proposed decision that received little support from other arbitrators due to concerns about it being one-sided. What is your familiarity with the arbitration process, and how do you believe cases should be handled? Do you plan to propose any reforms in this regard?
I'm a clerk for the arbitration committee, so I'm relatively familiar with the policies and procedures regarding arbitration proceedings, though I have relatively little knowledge about how the committee functions on the inside. I believe that cases need to be handled in a timely manner, but without sacrificing quality of the proposed decision; there's a happy middle ground in there, and I think sometimes arbitrators have a hard time finding that sweet spot. In short, having all of the active arbitrators involved in all of the cases from opening through voting should help to expedite the process. If all the arbs read the evidence and participate in the workshop as those phases are underway then there's less "catching up time" where you're waiting for arbitrators to read the evidence and workshop between the proposed decision being posted and the voting. Also, having such participation would allow an arbitrator having trouble posting a proposed decision in a timely manner to more easily call on their fellow arbs for assistance in creating the proposed decision quickly. It would also allow for a maximum of collaboration between the drafting arbs, the rest of the committee, and the participants of the case in creating a proposed decision, which would hopefully result in a proposed decision that is more amicable to everyone involved in the case, both arbs and participants. Sans that, though, I'm not familiar enough with what holds up cases or causes unpopular proposed decisions to speculate on what changes would help improve the process. However, as far as specific reforms go I would prefer not speculate on what reforms could be needed or possible until I know how the committee functions internally.
Several cases in past years have focused on the tension between so-called "subject experts" who know about the intricacies of the subject area and "general editors" who are familiar with the standards that are applied across Wikipedia. What are your thoughts about such issues?
Subject experts can be a valuable asset for so called "general editors", and general editors can be valuable assets for subject experts. All too often the two sides clash without any explanation by either side of what the issue is. Subject experts need to be willing to cooperate with and/or learn Wikipedia standards, and general editors need to be willing to be patient with subject experts while they manage the somewhat steep learning curve of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If both sides do this then they can each be wildly helpful to the other; if a general editor helps a subject expert learn the ropes of Wikipedia and beef up articles on complicated topics like helicity (fluid mechanics) or weather radar with their expertise in a way that meets Wikipedia standards, then the result can be wonderfully complete, in-depth articles like tornado.
In 2014, the English Wikipedia remains among the few projects (if not the only project) where the process for removal of adminship is not community-driven. What are your thoughts about how adminship is reviewed on this project, and do you think this should be changed, or are you happy with the status quo?
Hmmm. Tough one. Subjectively I'm happy with the status quo (except for how difficult it is to get an administrator's adminship reviewed), but objectively I feel that it's probably time to look at alternative processes. I think that the status quo would probably work better if it were easier to hold admins accountable, so for sure a requirement of any change would be making the process more accessible. I'm not familiar with how they do things on the other projects, but some of the processes used on other large projects may be worth examining for inspiration or even for direct compatibility with the English Wikipedia, especially seeing as past proposals of community-driven processes for the removal of adminship haven't really taken flight here.
Serving as a functionary (even more so as an arbitrator) often means dealing with unpleasant issues, including but not limited to helping those dealing with doxing and real-world harassment and communicating with WMF about legal issues. In addition to onwiki and offwiki harassment, functionaries have often had false accusations made against themselves, frequently in venues where they are unable to defend themselves or where the accusers are unwilling to listen to reason. What effects would both of these have on your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
So far as I can tell the effects would be minimal. I've got a rather thick skin, don't have a job to lose, and am open with my family and friends about the kind of harassment that can come from being elected to the Arbitration Committee. I'm also indirectly open about my real life identity, so it's not like it'd be any huge revelation if people started posting around personal information about me.
What is your familiarity with Wikimedia-wide policies, such as the CheckUser policy and the Oversight policy, as well as the Privacy policy? What is your opinion as to how Wikimedia (staff and volunteers) handles private information?
I'm an oversighter, and as such am familiar with the oversight policy and the privacy policy. I am not as familiar with the checkuser policy, but I'll add that to my imminent reading list to give myself a refresher. Personally I think that Wikimedia does a fine job of handling private information.
The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to provide lasting dispute resolution in difficult cases that the community has difficulty resolving. However, of course Wikimedia is a community-driven project. To that end, what are your views regarding what should be handled by the community, and what should be handled by arbitration?
Arbitration is for when community resolution has hit dead ends at every turn and has nowhere left to go. The arbitration committee should step in when the community have exhausted (and perhaps re-exhausted) every measure at their disposal without managing to resolve the situation, or when it seems exceedingly unlikely that any further measures that the community could take would be effective in resolving the situation.

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I noticed you were inactive for the first 6 months or so of the year... what happened?
Real life. It's not that I was particularly busy for most of the time I was inactive, I just got more absorbed in some of my other hobbies (I did some storm chasing and watched the first 13 seasons of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, for example). However, if elected I'll make it a point put in the time to fulfill my responsibilities as an arbitrator, and I fully anticipate that I will be able to carry out the responsibilities without sacrificing my school or social life.

Questions from EllenCT

Is an editor's refusal or inability to follow the reliable source criteria a behavior issue within the purview of the Arbitration Committee? Why or why not?
Well, I don't see why it wouldn't be if it got there, since intentionally and systematically refusing to follow WP:RS could be considered a user conduct issue, but I highly stress that there's no fathomable reason whatsoever that the community shouldn't be able to handle such a situation.
When an editor is accused of misconduct stemming from subtle behavior issues (i.e., POV pushing instead of e.g. edit warring) surrounding a content dispute, is it ever possible to evaluate their conduct without at least attempting to understand and verify the facts and sources of the underlying content dispute? Why or why not?
Yes-ish. One would need to verify that the editor is indeed pushing a point of view, which would probably involve a quick check of the issue and sources, but to do that one need not understand or verify the facts and source beyond a very basic level (what're the POVs out there on the issue). Once it's determined what POVs exist it's easy to examine a users edits and determine if they are systematically pushing one of those POVs.
How would you handle a group of experienced editors who came before you at arbitration if they had willfully and repeatedly removed some but not all of the conclusions of sources (which they admit are of the highest reliability) because they personally disagree with those particular conclusions, when they do not object to the other conclusions from those sources?
Well, if I take you question at face value (the editors are literally removing relevant material cited by reliable sources for no reason other than they don't agree with the material, and the fact they are removing the material for that reason is a proven fact), then I would say that would constitute intentional violation of WP:NPOV or WP:OR (I'm not really sure which is more relevant in this case). As such, if for some reason the community were not able to handle it and a case ensued (which, like in question 1, I really don't see as likely) then I would be likely to recommend sanctions of some sort on the editors and/or topic area, though what form those would take would vary depending on the particulars of the situation.
If an editor, when asked to provide an example of what they consider to be a high quality source on a given subject, responds with a source which was sponsored by a commercial organization with a clear conflict of interest, would you expect other editors to refer to that example when other COI issues concerning that editor and the same subject matter arise? Why or why not?
Probably. It would be of some relevance since it could be used to establish that the editor has a continuing pattern of COI/RS problems, especially if they were instructed why such sources are not acceptable when they presented their "high quality source".

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rich Farmbrough

Arbitrators do not make policy. How would you handle sweeping remedies which amount to policy change, for example the one that puts all BLP pages and LP mentions under discretionary sanctions?
I'm not sure I'd call that a policy change (I really don't see discretionary sanctions as policy change, no matter how broad), but putting that issue aside it does seem to have a massive scope for such a remedy. I don't know that I'd really be comfortable making remedies that are that all-encompassing, since I think discretionary sanctions need to be as narrow and targeted as possible without sacrificing the ability to maintain order in a topic area. However, if order in the "topic area" (calling all BLPs and LP mentions a topic area feels a bit like calling Chicago or New York City a village) cannot be achieved through less broad means then I guess it would be necessary to use such broad measures.
Arbitrators need a lot of time to do justice to a complex case, with request, evidence, workshop, talk pages, propose decisions, and talk pages all comprising maybe hundreds or thousands of diffs, and up to the equivalent of a short novel of text, not to mention email evidence and discussion, "the other Wiki" and background research. Do you have the time to conscientiously work on these sorts of case?
Yes. If you would like further elaboration on this, feel free to ask.
Because of the workload of Arbitration cases, it has been suggested that they should, in general, be heard by 5 or 7 of the active arbitrators, possibly with one "spare". Would you support a solution like this?
Not really. I think that the more members of the committee that participate in a case the better. Some arbcom decisions have components that are passed by narrow margins, say 6 to 5 or even the not-as-narrow 8-3. If you had a case heard by 5 or 7 arbs then the results could be completely different: measures that would have passed or failed 6-5 or 8-3 could suddenly do the opposite if a majority of the arbs hearing a case would have been in the minority had the full committee been hearing the case. Basically, when passing a decision as the "official decision" of the committee it is best for as much of the committee as possible to weigh in on the decision, or else you run the risk of passing decisions that are not representative of what the committee as a whole would have passed.
Arbitrators need a lot of patience. I was very worried when one Arbitrator said on-wiki he had difficulty keeping his temper. Do you think you have the patience this role requires?
I think so, and in the unlikely event I get close to losing my cool sometime I can always step away for a couple hours and watch some TV or something to relax and cool off.
Arbitrators need to be impartial and be seen to be impartial. If you became an arbitrator would you announce your opinion of the outcome of a case, or of an involved party at the request stage? Do you think Arbitrators should have the power to add any party they like to a case?
At the request stage, probably not beyond a very basic level (ex. "If ... then sanctions may be necessary.", or something general to that effect). I would make it a point to keep an open mind as an arbitrator, so my goal would be to enter a case without any predispositions regarding specific editors or specific outcomes. I believe that the Arbitrators should have the power to add parties to cases, however, I think that this power should not be used willy-nilly; the arbitrators should confer with the parties to a case about the prospect of adding any particular editor as a party. I should note that in my opnion if the committee suggests that a party be added it should not be taken as a presumption by the arbitrators that the editor has misbehaved or that the editor will be sanctioned.
The Committee must also be seen to be impartial as a whole. If you were elected would you be willing to waive your right to bring cases for the duration of your office? If not why not?
If I remember correctly I have never filed a case request before at all (if I have, someone feel free to correct me), so I don't anticipate needing to do so during my term in office. I also get the sneaking suspicion that if something needed arbitration so badly that I noticed and thought so, it's 99% likely that it's so bad several other people would have come to the same conclusion. As such, I am comfortable waiving my right to bring cases while I'm in office.
As an Arbitrator you would have access to the Checkuser right. As well as the obvious responsibility of access to private information, the right brings the power (if you have the block bit) to make effectively non-overturnable blocks, by simply labelling them as "checkuser blocks". This is because a block can be based on private information not available to mere administrators. A significant number of checkusers have used this privilege without any private information being relevant. Do you consider this something that you would do or condone, and why?
Man, to me it's common sense that if you're labeling a block as a "checkuser block" then you should be basing said block at least in part on data only available to checkusers. Why someone would label a block as checkuser block when the block wasn't based on data only available to checkusers is beyond me.
The purpose of the Committee is to resolve disruptive disputes which the community cannot. One ex-Arbitrator commented that "it is not about justice and fairness". Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment, to what extent and why?
Hmmm. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee doesn't really jive with what I would consider "justice"; "justice" sounds too punitive to my ears, which isn't the purpose of the Arbitration Committee. "Fairness" fits a little bit better, but I'm still not quite sure that it's the right fit, since the purpose of the committee is to resolve user conduct issues and prevent disruption where the community can't handle the situation...to do so may necessarily require some solutions that may be considered "unfair" by one party or another. So I guess on the whole I mostly agree with the statement, even though it's not the type of statement I would normally make.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Questions from Carrite

If you were assigning a letter grade to Arbcom for its work in 2014, what would that grade be? What was the committee's greatest success and their worst mistake?
I'll be honest, over the last year I've really only paid detailed attention to the cases and proceedings which I've clerked. Because of the relatively low case load this year (only 7 cases closed so far this year) that means I've only clerked one case, plus one that's currently ongoing. For the completed case I clerked I'd give it a B (85%), but that due to the length of time it took to complete the case (nearly three months). The remedies seem to have mostly worked in that case, however, because there have only been two AE sanctions necessary and no discretionary sanctions necessary since the case closed in late April. As far as the case I'm clerking currently, I'd give them an A- so far...it seems to be going alright, but they seem to be having trouble agreeing on a proposed decision, which is holding up the case somewhat (though at only a month and a half long so far it's doing pretty well for an arbitration case). I don't really want to speak to cases or other proceedings that I didn't follow closely, so for now I'll leave it at that, but if you have any other particular cases or proceedings you want me to grade/evaluate let me know and I'll be happy to research them.
The Arbcom process is slow, generally running nearly 6 weeks from first case request to final decision. What can be done to speed up this process?
I detailed some of what I think may help in Rschen7754's question #3. Basically I think more prompt participation by the parties in a case (it's actually somewhat common for parties to request the evidence or workshop phases be extended) and greater engagement by the arbs throughout the duration of a case would help to speed things up (perhaps not significantly, but at least somewhat).
If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?
If I could wave a magic wand and make everyone get along together and cooperate then that'd be great, but I'm assuming you're looking for something more realistic. In that case I think what I would like to change/improve is the distribution of editors per topic area. If there were some way to get more editors from high-participation topic areas, like military history or tropical cyclones into related low-participation areas, like regional history or severe weather, then I think it could go a long way towards improving the quality of articles in the low-participation areas and hopefully allow them to start catching up with the quality of articles in high-participation areas.

Questions from Dennis Brown

Without naming names, what skills or qualities do you have that are unique, that might not be present in the current Arbs or candidates? What makes you stand out?
I've got a high level of experience with the arbitration process, policies, and procedures compared to most of the candidates (at least the ones who are not current or former committee memebers or clerks). This means I would require a shorter time period to adjust to the role and would be able to play a relatively larger part from the beginning, something which could be very useful given that there will be ongoing cases when the term starts. I've also dabbled in many areas and processes on Wikipedia, instead of specializing in any particular one, which gives me a breadth of experience somewhat larger than some of the candidates. Also, I've mostly kept my nose clear of any direct conflict with other editors or topic areas, so there's very few editors or topic areas with which I would need to recuse myself (I can only think of maybe two or three).

Assuming you are elected at Arb, what role do you expect to play as part of that committee?
I'm not particularly sure. I'll stand by my answers to similar questions in previous elections: I'll find my niche once my term starts (if I'm elected) and I've had a chance to see what roles need to be filled.

What have you done at Wikipedia that you think makes you particularly suitable for the position of Arb?
Well, my experience as an arbitration clerk certainly helps. Basically see my entire answer to your first question.

Question(s) from Worm That Turned

Hi, Ks0stm. Last year, I asked you if you'd thought much about the "dark side" of being an arbitrator and how had you prepared. I'm glad you had taken steps to prepare, and won't ask about them if you feel it better to keep them private. I was wondering if you could have a bit of think and let us know if you have any other further thoughts on the matter?
I've still got my ducks in a row and I'm confident that I can handle "the dark side", but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't at least a little apprehensive of it. Fortunately there may be a change coming in a few months that may assist me in reducing real-world impacts of the job, but again I'd prefer not specify details in public lest I reduce the effectiveness.
In addition - what do you believe has changed since last year that would make you a better candidate to be an arbitrator?
More experience, more maturity, and more time. First, I have another year of experience as an arbitration clerk, administrator, and editor (despite that I vanished for a good six months of the year I've still managed to clerk two arbcom cases and do quite a bit of administrator work). I've also aged another year and have matured correspondingly (even more so compared to two two years ago). Finally, I have more time that I could dedicate to carrying out the responsibilities of office; now that I'm in a Bachelor of Arts degree my classes don't take as much of my time as they did when I was in meteorology. Just a note, you may also find my question to Dennis Brown's first question relevant.

Thanks for answering, I wish you the best of luck. Worm^TT(talk) 09:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tryptofish

What is your opinion of User:Tryptofish/Draft B for ArbCom, in terms of transparency, privacy, and whether it should become part of ArbCom procedures? Thanks!
It seems reasonable; I can't find anything objectionable about it, so I wouldn't mind if it became part of the procedures. (Though I would suggest adding the part about redacting personal information in the second through fifth parts, like in the first.

Question from Carcharoth

Please take a look at a set of questions I wrote four years ago, based on my first term as an arbitrator. Please pick and answer one or more questions from that list. Provide as much reasoning as needed to allow the electorate to judge how you would respond to these and similar situations you will probably encounter if elected.
Parties to a case are squabbling on the case pages and no clerks are around:
If no clerks are available to take care of a situation in a timely manner, whether it be this type of situation or something else, I would have no issue with carrying out duties normally done by the clerks. Basically, if I'm elected, I won't suddenly not be willing to perform clerk tasks when necessary.
You sense you are very tired/ill or not fully alert, but voting needs to be done:
In my opinion better to take a few hours to sleep than to try and analyze evidence/workshop comments and vote on a tired brain. The conclusions you end up coming to on a tired, halfway-there brain could end up being very different from the ones you would come to if you were rested, alert and thinking clearly, especially since the brain tends to miss details when tired.
After several months of intense arbitration work, you begin to hallucinate that you are God:
Man, if that happens, please, feel free to throw me in the looney bin. Or send me on vacation. Or really anything that would give me a break. In all seriousness, though, I'm sure I'll have plenty enough breaks that I won't burn out, what with storm chasing in the spring/summer and new TV episodes and basketball, football, and baseball covering most of the year.

For the sake of keeping this brief I'll leave this there, but if you want me to answer about any of the others in particular feel free to ask.

Question from Hawkeye7

Why do you want to be a member of member of ArbCom? What do you hope to accomplish?
This may be a boring answer, but I want to be a member of ArbCom because I'm willing to do the job and I feel like I'd do it well. As far as what I hope to accomplish, again it's boring, but I'd simply like to have a positive effect on the committee itself and on Wikipedia as a member of the committee; if I did that successfully I'd feel like I accomplished what I wanted to do.

Questions from Bazonka

Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee?
I've not participated in them before, but I've been interested in them (especially local Wikimeets, Wikimania, etc). On the whole, being on the committee couldn't result in my participating in them less, but it's possible it would make me participate in them more.
One of the Arbcom candidates is standing on a pro-pie policy. Whilst you may find that to be a flippant approach, many editors do appreciate pie. What is your favourite kind of pie?
Mmmmm, I'm a big fan of Key lime pie, especially because the first time I ever had it was in the Florida Keys. I'm also a fan of rhubarb pie, lemon pie, chocolate pie...hell, really almost any pie that doesn't have nuts (pecan, etc) or coconut.

Questions from Fæ

I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of dispute?
I am neither, however I'm definitely woman- and LGBT-friendly. Many of my friends in real life are women, and I see women as being an important demographic to have in nearly every community, including Wikipedia. In addition, one of my friends is a lesbian and at least a couple three more bisexual, so I understand some of the issues surrounding LGBT and the difficulties that people identifying as such can experience.