Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Wbm1058/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?
Cases should never be opened with a presumption that sanctions are inevitable. All parties are presumed to be innocent of wrongdoing until concrete evidence demonstrates otherwise.
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?
I'm not sure I would characterize any topic ban, no matter how "limited", as a minor sanction. A topic ban seems like a fairly serious sanction to me. Yes, I would need to see specific policy or guideline violations to support a topic ban. I would not be inclined to effectively "overrule" an immediately prior AN/I discussion and impose a ban unless (1) I did see specific policy/guideline violations and (2) there was something demonstrably faulty about the prior discussion which called for overruling it (e.g., a close which did not accurately reflect consensus).
Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?
I would not participate in any case without carefully reading the workshop and evidence pages. I'd encourage participants to present evidence in as concise a manner as practical.
"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?
Stare decicis is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. I am truly surprised to see the assertion that this has not been the rule for ArbCom decisions, and would be interested in learning the rationale behind that. It seems to me that failure to follow precedent, without a finding of good reason for establishing a new precedent, risks the imposition of unequal and arbitrary justice.
Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?
I wasn't thinking of the Five Pillars" as being simply an essay, but, looking at WP:ESSAY, I see that there are actually five types of essays, and the Five Pillars is not a mere user essay, but rather a "Wikipedia Information Page" which happens to summarize the five fundamental policies on which Wikipedia is based and supported. Thanks for asking this question. I pledge that I will, before issuing any opinion as an arbitrator, check to ensure that it doesn't violate any of the Pillars. And that last one, IAR, is not a carte blanche to ignore the other four.
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?
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of WP:BLP. I view it as virtually a sixth pillar. Editors should treat each other, and indeed all living persons, with respect and civility. For a top-ten ranked website, whose articles often float to the top of search engine results, this is of paramount importance.
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?
A "faction" is a group of editors who share the same point-of-view on a topic, which usually differs significantly from the legitimate point-of-view of another group of editors. Unfortunately, in current practice, factions do sometimes control the tenor of some articles. I can see the possibility of sanctioning a faction as a group, but would really need to examine the specific evidence in detail before I could make a more specific suggestion than that.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great questions, thank you. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda Arendt

Thanks for being the third candidate ready to offer your service! Last year, I asked 3 questions, this year it's only one: imagine you are an arb, how would you comment in this case? As last year, I will not evaluate, but let the combined answers speak. Hint, after we had a first answer: you don't have to evaluate a whole case, just one request. My so far favourite comment has four words ;)
My immediate reaction upon reading the sanction "... is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes", is that I don't want to sanction editors for doing something which they might be expected to do. Infoboxes are an integral part of the encyclopedia, and I wouldn't want to sanction any editor for simply editing or discussing them. I might presume that there was something bad about the manner in which this editor added or discussed the addition of removal of infoboxes, but without going back and reading the case which resulted in the imposition of sanctions, I have no idea what the specific nature of that bad behavior was. So this leads to unnecessary drama when another editor files a complaint after the sanctioned editor makes a valid and helpful edit. The solution to this is to be more specific in the text of the sanction in describing the undesired behavior that is being sanctioned. But that's water under the bridge and you're asking me how I would respond to a request for enforcement of a sanction that was imposed by a previous ArbCom. For that, I would have to go back and read the previous case before making my comment, but I would be surprised if I found that this truly violated the spirit of the previous sanction.

Thank you for answering many questions I didn't (dare to) ask. Once elected, you will be faced with clarifications of older cases, and you will not always be able to read all of the background. My summary would be here, paraphrased: "This seems not truly to violate the spirit of the sanction." - Acceptable?

Don't underestimate how far I'm willing to go to read the background. I see that the two cases immediately following the one you linked in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement are somewhat related to this issue as well. I see some pettiness here, but, again I am reluctant to sanction an editor for any constructive edit, so yes, I agree with the result: no action taken. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Altamel

Thank you for offering to take on the difficult and time-consuming position of arbitrator. In your candidate statement, you offered to run for adminship should you be elected. If this were to happen and you did not pass RfA, would you take this as a motion of no confidence, or as a signal that Wikipedia currently has a greater need for arbitrators than administrators?
I would have to read the comments of those opposing my RfA to get an understanding of what would be to me an unexpected result. Until I did that, I'm not sure how I would interpret that theoretical result. I do think, at the moment, that there is a greater need for arbitrators than admins. Perhaps the sitting arbs are all playing "chicken" with us, and that could all change in a day, but I don't want to take that chance. And I don't want any sitting arbs to feel forced to run for re-election because no acceptable new blood is offering to take the baton. There is a good chance that I would be just a single-term arb myself. I'm not looking for a new career doing this. I may run for admin sometime soon regardless; I keep putting that off because I find too many other things to keep me busy as an editor.
Ideally, how should ArbCom mediate disputes between the community and WMF? What mistakes have been made in the past, and how would you do things differently?
Communication, communication, communication. There has not been enough quality communication. As I'm not aware of what communication may have been going on outside of public view, I don't really know what mistakes ArbCom may have made in private discussions with the Foundation.

Thanks for your time. Altamel (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I appreciate the questions. Wbm1058 (talk) 05:25, 17 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?
Civility has been a major topic of discussion on the site for the past several months. Any time you see discussion on such a topic that goes on and on, then yes, that indicates that there is a problem with civility on Wikipedia. Unfortunately there has been no consensus on either the severity of the problem or on solutions to it. It seems to me that Wikipedia:Civility policy is thus not working in an optimal manner and needs to be improved. Specifically, blocking valuable content creators for incivility has not always worked to the desired effect. An alternative I would like to explore is prompt revision deletion of uncivil talk page comments, without blocking the editor. Some may cry that this is censorship, but, as the offending editor is given every chance to reword their comments in a civil manner, I disagree. Of course, then you have the issue of who decides whether a comment was sufficiently civil and how. We should keep working to find answers to this, as the issue is not going to go away unless it's addressed.
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?
Yes, this is a problem. How serious, I don't know. Neither do I have any immediate ideas for addressing it. Encyclopedia editing is far from the only activity that has a gender gap. The important thing is to ensure that all who want to edit feel comfortable doing so. But if a certain demographic doesn't inherently want to edit, and prefers other uses of their time, I think it would be counterproductive to "twist their arms" into editing. We want editiors who want to be here. It would be helpful if the Foundation conducted a survey of editors in order to gain more insights, and shared the results with us.

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 15 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?
I was exploring the history of the DOS operating systems, and didn't find a satisfactory comprehensive timeline anywhere on the Internet. I found a stub that covered the bare essentials, albeit largely without supporting references and with several inaccuracies. I've spent considerable time correcting it and filling in the gaps, and that's been an educational and rewarding experience for me. While I was aware that many of the related articles also had errors, I kept the focus on getting my one article up to good quality, and put on blinders to problems elsewhere to keep my focus. But I couldn't keep the blinders on and began branching out to work in other areas. When the "requested moves" bot stopped operating and its operator retired, I took that over (I'm a retired mainframe programmer). Later I took over the bot that supports "proposed mergers" as well. You can find some of the other issues I regularly patrol on my user page.
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?
Perhaps my most satisfying experience in collaboration to date, which demonstrates my ability to read the spirit of a consensus and implement an acceptable compromise solution, is Template:Orphan. After a widely-advertised RfC reached a consensus to move the orphan message to the talk page, further examination and discussion found significant technical concerns with implementing that change. I implemented a compromise which limited the visibility of the message, which I'm proud to say successfully withstood a followup challenge. Sometimes it's very difficult to come to a consensus; there are many polarizing issues to cover in an encyclopedia. It may be best just to agree to disagree and cover each POV in a neutral manner. Trouble starts when one POV wants to label another as "fringe" and keep that view out of the encyclopedia. Even those at the fringes have a right to be heard, and it can be done in a neutral way if you work at it.
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?
As I said in my nomination statement, I am not particularly familiar with the arbitration process. But justice delayed can be justice not served, as well as incorrect justice delivered swiftly. I don't know enough to know whether reforms are needed here, much less what they would be, but surely some happy, optimal point between these extremes can be found.
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?
Standards should never get in the way of factual accuracy. "Subject experts" should consider the feedback they get from "general editors", and endeavor to make their contributions understandable to laymen, to the extent that is possible. I'm not really familiar with this area of tension between editors, so can only answer the question in general terms. Oh, now I recall that a university professor got some press after some of his Haymarket affair edits failed to stick. This is a two-way street. "General editors" should assume good faith and recognize "subject experts" when they appear, and help them with the technical requirements. A little bit of cooperation can go a long way here.
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?
I would like to look at the processes used by other projects to see what the alternatives are and how well they are working elsewhere. There seems to be a significant portion of editors who feel that the process for removal of adminship is not working here. I don't share the view that we have a critical shortage of administrators, so we could remove one or two "bad apples" without materially breaking anything. We've had some non-binding, high-profile requests for comment about system software, why not one about an admin? One or two examples set might be sufficient to rein in perceived "abusive" behavior. Sorry, just thinking out loud. This kind of thing could get ugly. Ideally, abusive admins, who do not enhance the project's public image, should have their tools removed before the wider community starts taking up arms.
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?
Unpleasant may be putting it mildly. I'm reminded of the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I will only support sanctions which are fair and reasonable. I think I have a fairly thick skin.
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've looked at the policies, albeit not with the fine-toothed comb a lawyer might use. I've emailed requests for oversight a few times, and my general impression is that Wikimedia does a good job handling private information. If I have one concern in this area, it is that editors may be too often accused of being sock puppets without adequate proof.
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?
Lasting dispute resolution is an admirable goal which can be hard to achieve. Perhaps Wikipedia:Mediation is underutilized. Resolutions agreed to by all parties via negotiation are more likely to provide lasting dispute resolution than those imposed by arbitrators, especially if some parties to the dispute view the arbitrators' decision as unjust. Thus, mediation should be encouraged, and arbitration only used as a last resort. However, arbitration may be more appropriate for larger issues which have more global impacts.

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

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?
Following the reliable source criteria is important. Issues arise when editors differ on whether a source is truly "reliable". A source which doesn't support a particular POV should not be branded as unreliable for that reason. The first attempts at resolution should be on an article's–or perhaps a user's–talk page. More difficult disagreements then should be taken to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. However, the Arbitration Committee's job is to handle disputes over editor conduct, not to resolve disputes over content. So caution is advised here, as the reliable source criteria gets to the heart of content. The manner in which the dispute over content is being conducted needs to be separated from the substance of the dispute itself.
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?
Good question. Perhaps one should first look at the conduct without attempting to verify the underlying facts and sources, to keep one's focus on the behavior, and form a preliminary conclusion. Then check facts and sources to confirm the initial conclusion, or if I was unable to form any conclusion based on a discussion I had difficulty understanding without context. I may need to work through some real-world examples before I can give a better answer, or ask my fellow arbitrators for guidance on this.
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?
So arbitrators are not supposed to settle content disputes, yet you are posing a question, which unfortunately seems like something that could or has happened in practice, suggesting some rather bad editor conduct involving the manipulation of content to skew it to a particular POV. Sorry, now I'm wanting to run off and research past cases to look for precedents which have been set in this area. That would take a while, so I'm punting on this one–and looking for guidance.
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?
I'm finding this a question a bit difficult to parse. So I'll walk you through my answer. Situation "A": I assume that I'm aware that editor "1" has provided a commercially-sponsored source to editor "2" in response to "2"s request for a high-quality source. Situation "B": Other matters regarding conflict-of-interest involving "1" and the same topic area are raised by "other editors" "3" and "4". I don't think I would expect "3" or "4" to even be aware of the matter involving "2", much less refer to it. Feel free to ask me a followup if I'm not getting the gist of your question.

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 21:06, 15 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?
Oh my. I just recently became aware of the concept of discretionary sanctions, when an issue was raised here, and then that discussion moved to here. Sorry, that's a long read, but the Arbitration Committee needs to realize that these extremely broad and vague directives, which in good faith seem to be aimed at minimizing disruption to Wikipedia, are causing confusion among rank-and-file editors who do not follow Committee proceedings, the end result being an unintended disruption of a normal discussion process. Now I see you've linked to a narrow-scoped 2008 case about footnoted quotes, involving a single editor, which was amended by a May 2014 "housekeeping provision" (item 6 of 9), the result of which was to deprecate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Administrator instructions, a subpage of an English Wikipedia policy. And you say that "Arbitrators do not make policy". Sorry, this is a lot for me to soak in at once, so I'm not ready to more specifically answer your question at this time.
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?
My movement into the top 1800 Wikipedians by number of edits should indicate that I have the time to edit Wikipedia (perhaps too much time;) – but I need to prioritize. Serving on the Committee would necessarily shift my priorities some, but I expect to be able to maintain some level of support for the stuff I already do.
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?
This is an interesting idea that I think may have some merit, but I'd like to see more discussion of the pros and cons before taking a position on it. Just noting the analogy to actual courts in the US dividing up their caseloads by judge. Typically the clerk of courts randomly assigns a new case to the next judge in line. Only appeals are heard by more than one judge. Furthering the analogy, perhaps relatively narrow or minor cases could be heard by a subset of the Committee, reserving broader or more sweeping cases for the entire Committee.
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?
Yes.
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?
No, and no.
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?
I have yet to bring a dispute to the administrator's noticeboard, much less to arbitration. I've managed to settle disputes through more ordinary venues. So, sure, I'm willing to waive my right. I think it's unlikely I would need to contemplate bringing a case anyway.
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?
By "checkuser blocks", I think you mean what may also be called "sock puppet blocks". I think I need an explanation of what without any private information being relevant means before I can answer. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the "sock puppet" label and could use more technical education in this subject. I think I understand the concept that two registered editors sharing the same IP address could be sock puppets, unless they are family members sharing the same Internet connection, for example?
The purpose of the Committee is to resolve disruptive disputes which the community cannot. On ex-Arbitrator commented that "it is not about justice and fairness". Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment, to what extent and why?
This is a fundamental question, where it seems I may disagree with some other candidates. So, to answer this fundamental question, I go back to the Five Pillars, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration in search of what they have to say about "justice", "fairness" and "disruption". "The difference between a conduct and a content dispute is that, in a conduct dispute, the actions of a user (such as how an editor edits or the comments the editor makes about other users) is the overriding issue. If there would be no substantive dispute if the editor was not behaving in a disruptive or unprofessional way, then it is a conduct dispute." I see that these are about disruption, and preventing, stopping and avoiding it. I'm afraid I'd not finding mentions of fairness or justice. Nevertheless I don't see these as mutually exclusive. Isn't it better to stop disruption in a fair and just manner, rather than stop disruption in what may be viewed in an unfair way? If elected, I will endeavor to stop disruption in a way that is viewed as fair. Some may disagree with my view of what's fair (I hope not too often), but that's the best way to move users beyond disputes and serve Wikipedia.

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

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? Everyking (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Juries deliberate privately; I have no problem with ArbCom doing the same. In some cases, I may be willing to answer questions asked after the decision has been made, much as an individual juror might be willing to be interviewed after a court verdict has been made. However, much of Arbitration Committee processes are conducted in public, I support that, and would not want that taken private. I trust that the Committee has good sense about what is appropriate for private vs. public discussion, until I see otherwise I'll assume they are doing the right thing.

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?
If you've read my comments up to now, you should know I haven't been paying particularly close attention to the Committee's work. So I am not prepared to give a grade, or comment on successes or mistakes. I am aware that the Committee comes under considerable criticism from the "Internet galleries". I'd keep that knowledge in the back of my mind, and endeavor to work in a fair and objective manner.
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?
As I said above, I don't have any specific suggestions, as I have not looked closely enough at the process.
If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?
This seems more like a question for a candidate for the Foundation board, rather than the Arbitration Committee. I think that Wikipedia has matured to the point where it might begin evolving a bit away from its roots as a Wiki and towards becoming a more serious encyclopedia. The model I'm thinking of is the PBS. I don't think they get all of their content for free. I wonder, whether donors to Wikipedia believe that they are donating to a "PBS-like" organization?

Thank you for your answers. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate comments

It seems the Vegas odds makers are not giving me much of a chance. A sufficient number of experienced editors with the admin bit did jump in at the last minute. This has been an interesting exercise for me. If the election process were one in which my remaining in the race might force a run-off, I would drop out at this point to avoid that. But as remaining on the ballot would seem to do no harm, I'm just making a "soft withdrawal". Thanks to those who have commented on my candidacy. I'm closing this page to further questions, and ask that no more questions be posted here, so that I can get back to my regular editing. Thanks all. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

. . .

I'm greatly encouraged by being one of three recommended candidates on Collect's list (indeed their top-rated!). I don't want to discourage those who might support me, so am making a "soft-reentry". Feel free to ask any followup questions, or new questions which haven't already been answered above. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:Worm That Turned

Hi Wbm1058. I'm not sure we've ever run into each other, I'm Dave, one of the outgoing arbitrators. 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. Yes, I have been thinking about the "dark side". This does concern me a lot, and is a factor behind my "weird" withdrawal and reentry. Having recently served on a board where I was in the minority on a couple of "hot-button" issues, I know that experience is not fun and can overwhelm the fact there's agreement on the vast majority of more mundane issues. And I'm not sure whether, if I did feel heat, more would come from the "outsiders" or the "insiders". I don't really know how to prepare for this. Do you have any suggestions on how to prepare? Maybe you could mentor me? One thing I intend to do if I win or it becomes apparent that I really have a shot at winning is to do an in-depth study of Committee's case history database.
I find your "soft withdrawal" and "soft reentry" a bit surprising. My greatest concern is that if you're not even certain at this point - when you're thinking about it and everything is interesting, how will you cope with the day-to-day drudgery and pressures of being an arbitrator. Is it something you want to do?
Right, I'm not sure whether they will pay me enough to make the drudgery and pressures worth it. Maybe it's a bit like volunteering for the army—but at least they get paid. I don't think it would all be drudgery, however. I do have an interest in law. I once considered a second career as a paralegal and even applied to a school for that, but didn't follow through with it. Combination of high tuition and uncertain employment prospects. I know that many want to reform this system, and I think I would likely be considered a reformer. There is the potential for deriving a great deal of satisfaction from having improved the system.

Thanks for answering. If you want to chat about any of the issues, either on-wiki or off-, please do feel free to drop me a line. Worm^TT(talk) 09:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This essay is an interesting read. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.
(1) I would attempt to guide sidebar discussions on my talk or email back to the evidence or workshop pages, unless there was a good reason for keeping them as sidebars. (2) I would advise the Committee of any real-life issues effecting my ability to participate as soon as practical. (3) I would use my best judgement in handling "emergencies". (11) This job is too important to attempt when one is tired; I'd get some rest before voting. Sleeping on tough decisions can be helpful. To answer the rest in general terms: I am not God, and will endeavor to keep debates civil.

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 have not yet participated in any off-line Wikipedia activities, but am looking forward to the possibility of doing so in the future. Maybe WP:WikiConference USA next year? Especially if it's a truly open conference and they offer a compelling schedule of activities. More training type activities would be nice. An opportunity to meet and Q&A with some members of the Arbitration Committee would be nice too.
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?
I like variety and can't think of any pie I don't like. I suppose, for eating, if a rhubarb pie were on offer, I'd choose that, as I don't see them very often anymore, and have fond memories of the pies my grandmother baked from the rhubarb she grew in her garden when I was growing up. Now, if you want to throw a pie in my face, I'd prefer a cream pie for that!

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 a 58-year old man, so perhaps I will bring some age diversity, as my impression is that the average Wikipedian is a much younger male. So, society's attitudes towards women significantly changed for the better in the 1920s (at least in some parts of the world), for people of color the 1960s was similarly significant, particularly in the US. And now, the big change is happening for LGBT people. Maybe some time in the future, the mentally ill and not-so-good-looking will have their turn. This is all good. I experienced a bit low-level bullying growing up, probably due to the lack of "meat on my bones" (I'm a pretty good endurance athlete, but playing American football was a non-starter for me). That just made me tougher. I won't discriminate. As I said above, minority and unpopular viewpoints have a right to be heard.