Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/The Rambling Man/Questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}} If adding a second or subsequent question, do not leave a blank line after the previous one, because this splits the list into two and restarts the numbering.

2. Hello, my question is simple; how will you correct the arbitrary removal of musical/band articles by specific types of 'editors' who claim a lack of 'notoriety' due to not being able to find some link to another website as somehow being the only standard WikiPedia excepts? I personally barely, if at all in my original works, will cite a website, with some exceptions. The arbitrary attitudes of these types of 'editors' is the reason that the Wiki has a serious lack of editors, who have the time and energy to correctly and with good faith write articles, to fill those missing ones, are falling by the way side. To be specific the individual attitudes of Admin Editors who have very little care for the efforts of others, regardless of some attempt at a non-biased and neutral Wiki adherence. I consider the complete body of works by musicians and bands to be the goal, not some mistaken interpretation on 'notoriety' on a specific album/song, and therefore it to be omitted. How will you deal with this matter in the Wiki Admin sphere post haste?Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 02:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?

   No, of course not. The existence of the case simply means careful examination of the matters at hand, including any mitigating circumstances. A race to "sanction" or "admonish" has long been of no tangible benefit to Wikipedia.

4. If an administrator has openly stated a strong aversion to an editor's article edits on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?

   Depends on the nature of the "strong aversion". The answer is on a spectrum: if it's related to some kind of policy violation then it's one thing, if it's related to personal preference then it's another.

6. a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, ought there be a delay to give that editor sufficient time to address "new evidence"?
   b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, ought space and time for rebuttal be given?
   c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
   d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?

   a. Yes, to a point. Too often we've seen last-minute changes by Arbcom that are then seemingly rushed through. Some reasonable allowance should be given for people about to be hung, drawn and quartered by the process to defend themselves against new (and secret) evidence. b. Reasonable time should always be given. c. Yes, to an extent, because the Arbs will take as long as they like to consider all the evidence, so it's only reasonable for those being examined to address all evidence presented. d. Never. If it's evidence that can be published in the proposed decision, it should be evidence provided at the time of the evidence phase of the case. The secretive (and some would say subversive) nature of some of the actions in recent cases leads to nothing but a loss of confidence in the very people we're supposed to assured by.

2. The Arbitration Committee has to tackle many issues, but I will use a specific topical example, How would you if appointed handle an arbitration case where 'inappropriate' language or innuendo about a female BLP or contributor was alleged?

   In precisely the same way we would handle all other arbitration cases. Obviously BLP violations would need to be removed/redacted, and any ongoing disruption of that nature would need to be curbed, but any such case should be given exactly the same due diligence, regardless of its content.

2. Thank you for standing! Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Without spending some time reviewing that case (which I will do, but not right at this instant because I'm trying to convince an 18-month-old to eat some soup), I would say I have had more than my (and her) fair share of run-ins with Opabinia regalia but yet she remains one of the few Arbs over the past five or so years whose contributions to the committee are genuinely high quality, and this instance (at a quick glance) demonstrates that she's prepared to go against some of the herd mentality so frequently seen in recent cases. I'd certainly be one of those individuals who swims against the current if necessary, we need people to re-establish a connection to the editing community which, sadly, Arbcom lost some years ago.

2. The arbitration policy states that arbitrators are expected to recuse themselves from proceedings if they have a conflict of interest. What do you consider conflicts of interest? Are there any situations that may be considered COI "grey areas" that you have an opinion on?

   Again, a spectrum of things could constitute a spectrum of levels of COI. I would actively seek to avoid working on cases that involve editors with whom I have had significant past experience, whether it be good, bad or indifferent. COI grey areas? Not specifically, but I'm sure I'd be capable of assessing my own personal COI on a case-by-case basis, and if I had any doubts, I'd ask the rest of the committee on their (hopefully prudent and cautious) opinion, and respect it.

4. There is currently no requirement that ArbCom members have to be administrators, but historically every arbitrator has also been an admin. Do you see any value in having non-administrators on the commitee, why/why not? (I'm especially interested in answers from non-admin nominees)

   Well, it's well-known that I was an admin, and a 'crat, so I have a full working knowledge of everything that those roles entail. Non-admins are 100% capable of bringing value to the committee, the majority of cases actually don't rely on any innate admin capability, they simply rely on understanding how individuals relate to one another and how they relate to protecting and enhancing the project. With more than twelve years experience myself, I think from a personal point of view it's all the better to get non-admins involved if the community trusts them sufficiently.

6. Do you think that administrators or users in good standing who generally contribute to the project in a constructive manner should be given more leeway when it comes to sanctions against them (also referred to as the Super Mario problem)? If not, do you think this happens currently, and if so, what can be done to prevent it?

   I think that every case should be taken on its merits. I myself have been accused of being given special treatment for the vast amounts of superior content I've provided (;)) so I'm acutely aware of the perception and the ill effect it has on the community's trust in Arbcom as a whole. Having said that, some of the actions against admins/users without such a "good standing" have been sub-optimal. There needs to be much more focus on communication with those involved in these cases rather than the perpetuation of the courtroom dramas we see which invariably drag out grudges from "back in the day".

8. Given that you have been a party in multiple Arbitration cases (1, 2, 3), some of which resulted in editing restrictions and other remedies placed on you, do you think working with other arbitrators who contributed to the decisions in those cases will be an issue?

   Not at all, in fact I think it will actively benefit the community and the process to bring alternative views from those who have been on the other side of the process. As noted before, Arbcom have lost touch with the community as a whole, most of them do not contribute content to the encyclopedia in any meaningful way as a project for our readers, and there has become a culture of unnecessary obfuscation and secrecy. This has disenfranchised the community to such an extent that confidence in what Arbcom does is at an all-time low. For Arbcom to improve, there needs to be a sea change, and it may require radical options to be exercised, including the addition of one of the great unwashed to the committee.

10. What would you say to users who are hesitant to vote for someone who is under multiple editing restrictions and who resigned their adminship under controversial circumstances?

    Read my responses, ask me more questions, I have absolutely nothing to hide. I have no dog in the fight other than my ongoing and complete commitment to ensuring Wikipedia is a successful project. Cheers for your considered questions.

2. I assume you'd be the first to admit that in the past you've occasionally become tetchy at other editors and at Wikipedia in general. While I'm given to understand that the Shit Bucket Challenge aspect of arbcom-l has dropped somewhat since my day (my screenshot of the "you have 644 new emails" notification I awoke to one day isn't doctored), you're still probably looking at 50–100 incoming emails every day, some of which will be very complicated, some of which will be very unpleasant or distressing, some of which will be totally incoherent, and all of which will be from people insisting that you read and action them immediately!!!, and who if you don't (a) take immediate action and (b) ensure that the action you take is exactly what they want, will sometimes complain in every possible venue ranging from posting rants across Wikipedia about your obvious incompetence and corruption, to tracking down your real life family, friends or employer and ranting at them about your incompetence and corruption. How well do you think you'll handle the sudden transition from being a volunteer editor who works at the pace you choose, on things you want, and who is generally respected even by those who disagree with you, to being a de facto unpaid near full-time employee (one of the current arbs can give a better idea of the current workload, but I used to budget for between two to four hours a day just to keep on top of the 'basic' workload of arbcom-l and the noticeboards and open cases) who is every day given a pile of often-unwelcome tasks, in which you often have not the slightest interest, which need to be done to a deadline, all of which while being subjected to a near-constant barrage of both public and private abuse? (I'll be the first to say that I found that transition both unpleasant and overwhelming.)

   I worked as an OTRS volunteer for quite some time so I have a good clue about that transition. As you've noted, I've seen my fair share of drama lately and have experienced character assassination publicly from many people. I could expand on this but the general theme is, yes, I understand, yes, I appear to be much more able to commit to this than many other candidates given their contribution histories, yes I'm accustomed to being dragged through the mud backwards, over sharp sticks, landmines etc.

2. Okay, you're a content guy with over 180K edits, half to mainspace. Highest credit for that. And you're pissed at the way Arbcom has handled your particular case, which I haven't studied and have no opinion about — but I get that, too. Why should we content writers, who believe that expanding and improving the actual encyclopedia rather than self-important bureaucratic dilly-dallying is the main thing contribute to your self-annihilation as a content writer by electing you to the ridiculous bureaucratic time sink that is our Discipline Committee? Wouldn't it be better for all of us if you just say your piece during this campaign and then withdraw at 11:59 o'clock and get back to work? I'm not joking about this — how does electing you to Arbcom actually improve the encyclopedia versus two years of you having time to do productive content work?

   That's a good question (Discipline Committee - heh). I never approached being an admin or a 'crat assuming that it was my main thing and while I take Iridescent's points above onboard, being a member of Arbcom would never be my main thing either. My biggest issue is the huge disconnect that now exists between Arbcom and the editing community, many of whom feel that Arbcom is no longer fit for purpose, or in touch with community norms or worth even trying to utilise in order to actually arbitrate. I think I can improve Wikipedia through content and through action here. There's nothing to suggest I can't do both. In fact, if I reduced by mainspace output by 90%, I'd still be doing more mainspace work than most of the Arbs and candidates put together. And by the way, it's not about "my" case, it's about the general handling of cases over the past few years. In fact, if nothing else, the handling of my case is something of a showpiece for the catalogue of mistakes that seem to be made time and again. Why not think about electing someone who is pledging to work to reconnect the (Discipline) Committee to the real world of editors again? To urge for communication above discipline? To urge for common sense? To urge for interaction before "admonishment" (whatever good that ever does)? Cheers for your compliment by the way, much appreciated.

4. I'll follow up... Former Arbcom member turned bitter WP critic Kelly Martin is the person who first observed that "Arb Com" is a misnomer, that the institution is actually "the discipline committee of a voluntary association." Yet above you seem to indicate that there is some sort of "arbitration" function that remains unexplored by the committee. I contend that, in practice, the committee deals entirely with (a) behavioral disputes between intractable content warriors; and (b) allegations of Administrative tool abuse or loss of community trust — no other mechanism remaining for tools to be pulled by the community. Over the last two years particularly, Part B above has become the committee's almost exclusive function; you in your own case, as I now read it, having been roped in for intemperate language deemed unbecoming of an administrator. Fair or unfair, done is done. There is actually a reason that virtually all Arbs have content contribution pie charts the shape they are, and there is a reason that people with contribution pie charts the shape of yours do not run for Arbcom in the first place — see above for reference to the "Shit Bucket Challenge" and multiple hundreds of hours involved in fielding complaints and responding to demands and requests. Arbcom is all-consuming, it is the main thing for people elected to it. (Yeah, I've got a question coming, hang in there.) So: is Kelly Martin wrong that Arbcom is actually misnamed? Is there actually some content-arbitration function that has attenuated to the point where it needs to be resurrected through your personal intervention and leadership? And if so, how do you possibly propose as a single individual with a hostile relationship to at least half of the committee to change the committee's current focus on administrative tool abuse and bad editors behaving badly into something different? thanks, —tim

   As I noted before, I used to float around OTRS for many months so I know what that kind of workload and commitment entails. It's not something that worries me unduly, I think I've covered that a couple of times now, and I have noted Arbs who are able to contribute to the article space, it's just most don't, won't or simply aren't interested and just use collect hats, this one somehow being the Level 10 power-up of all power-ups. Kelly Martin has it mostly spot on from experience over the last many years. I see little actual work on "arbitration", just an aloof collection of individuals who gather in a dark room (usually for far too long) to deliberate over the futures of individuals (usually with little or no communication throughout the protracted process) and then deliver judgement and skip away merrily. There's seldom any real genuine discussions between the committee members and anyone actually genuinely involved in each case, in fact most of the actual work is done by the peanut gallery and those with decades of grudges and diffs. I don't think your question is precisely pertinent though, whether or not there's any content arbitration function or not, the committee needs to refresh its approach. They're here to provide a service to Wikipedia, so often we have tail wagging dog. I do not have "hostile" relations with any Arbcom members, I've simply had many "lively" discussions. And just like in any situation I'm in, say at work, I act professionally to deal with those with whom I disagree. It's part of my daily routine at work to engage with and get the most out of people I don't personally agree with most/all of the time. It would most likely be the other way round, that existing members of the committee who have issued "dislike" memos would find it hard to get over that and remember that I'm just here to improve the process and make Wikipedia the resource it was always intended to be, a source of excellence. Arbcom should spend less time cranking out well-worn adages at the top of each set of findings, and more time suggesting solutions that keep the engagement of the community and its focus on content, and that can be done in a far more streamlined fashion that it currently is performed. And, in summation, per Laozi, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Let's take that single step. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very illuminating and nicely put. I hope everyone reads this. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. In your self-nomination statement, you discussed Arbcom's role as of late in disenfranchising the Average Joes; you intend to bridge the gap between the editors and the "broken system". Here are my queries in response to your thoughts: (a.) Although I have a general understanding, in your opinion how has Arbcom disenfranchised editors; in other words, how did the system break? (b.) How do you plan to help the Commitee regain the trust of editors? (c.) Finally, do you believe the Commitee, particularly any members who happen to get re-elected, will be receptive to the change in attitude you would bring to Arbcom? This Average Joe (or, err, Jane) looks forward to your response!

   The system broke when suddenly Arbcom became re-imagined as "THE ULTIMATE JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER" and even the mere threat of an Arbcom case sent chills to the very core of Hell. The act of "arbitration" should be the resolution of disputes to the benefit of Wikipedia, not a six to twelve week charade where nothing really actually happens apart from peanut gallery offerings and usually abject silence from the committee. I don't have a date, I'm more content-focused, so my recent (e.g. last couple of years) experience with Arbcom has demonstrated, at least to me, and I believe many others in the community, that the way cases are conducted is no longer as it was originally intended. I mentioned above, Arbcom is a service to Wikipedia, i.e. they provide skills that other members of the community may not be able to, but ultimately what they should do is provide quick, analytical recommendations, rather than an "ultimate judgement" after weeks of lumbering, secretive cogitations. If I can do one thing only, it will be to improve the way in which Arbcom communicate with the community. Clerks so often make seemingly spurious edits because it's clear that Arbcom have instructed them to do so. Well, mostly, why? Why shouldn't we know why that deletion (say) happened? As for the existing committee members being receptive, well of course they will be, as they're no doubt as professional in they normal lives as I am, and can work with all comers. In fact, I'm sure some of them would welcome the opportunity to have the whole process audited. Allowing the devolving arbitration sequence go unaddressed for so long should be something we are all keen to explore and improve upon, and I'm certain the existing committee members would be more than happy to open up to prospect of improvement and community engagement. Indeed, I'd be shocked if they don't, perhaps you should ask them and the other candidates? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Pick three Arbitration cases from the last six years, explain in detail what aspects of the committee you agree with, what aspects you disagree with, and what you would attempt to do differently. Where you disagree with the previous outcomes and where you would do things differently, indicate how you would attempt to gain consensus and support from the other committee members. I would prefer you not use any case where you were a named party when answering this question

   Yeah, as you know, that's going to take quite some time, and while it's not quite "arcbom flu", I'm not going to be terribly active this weekend (and yes, you can slate me for that, but try telling my nearly-four-year-old that I can't make his birthday because I'm researching "in detail" some arcane aspects of previous cases which should exclude my own run-ins). I'll get back to you, but honestly, there's nothing quite like personal experience to highlight the (experience/disappointment/drama)*. * – delete where applicable The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. In October of last year, you resigned adminship under a cloud, after a little more than a year ten years with the mop. How should Wikipedians view your effort to serve on a body (ARBCOM) against whom you seem to have a grudge? Chris Troutman (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I think all the answers above adequately cover why I'm running, and that I will and do act professionally when grouped with individuals with whom I may or may not get along. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Over the past year, have you learned anything about how to engage with the Wikipedia community in a more civil manner?

   Yes, and as I indicated a couple of times above, I can work with people very well, and demonstrate that regularly. I can and do also work with people in the real world that I don't get on with. It doesn't affect my professionalism. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4. You said above that even the mere threat of an Arbcom case sent chills to the very core of Hell. Do you have any proposals to fix this?

   It's all about communication, and that's between Arbcom and those involved, not using the current aloof clerking mechanisms to seemingly censor and censure anything that is deemed inappropriate by this mysterious body. Not taking three months to arrive at the same conclusion the community reached in a couple of weeks, creating a time sink and masses of drama on the way. Arbitration is about resolving conflict, and that's through communication, something the current Arbs do with each but don't really do with those involved in cases. It's also about actually reading and working with the evidence presented. I'm not going to bang on about the case I was most recently involved in but somehow my name was dragged into it without any explanation, actually even contrary to those arbs who bothered to comment on it. The machinations are too cloak-and-dagger. Bringing in secret evidence which is neither published (sometimes reasonable) nor even submitted to those being accused of various violations for them to respond, that's the way dictatorships work. So we've got a list of things that can be improved, but starting with communication.

2. While I have no idea what you're like in real life, on Wikipedia you've recently come across as resentful, aggrieved, and as someone who handles frustration and criticism very poorly. (To be fair, I'm increasingly in the same category, so you're in good company). It is therefore puzzling that you're seeking out a position where you'll be subject to extreme levels of criticism and frustration. My question is a more pointed version of Iridescent's, which you answered by pointing to your history of dealing with what you view as unfair criticism. Do you think you've dealt well (or, to use your word, "professionally") with that criticism and frustration? You'll be in for a good deal more criticism—and a good deal more unfair criticism—if you're elected to ArbCom. Which aspects of your track record do you think should give us confidence that you'll deal with ArbCom-related stress calmly and thoughtfully?

   I have had a lot to be aggrieved about (I think) and yes, so I've come across that way, but I've also been on the receiving end of what I would judge to be borderline incompetence from a number of individuals who simply aren't actually fulfilling a role which is designated "arbitration". More or less, they are just dishing out punishment (and the perennially useless "admonishments". There's no skill there, nothing of any note required to allow the community to dig up all the dirt and then just all (pretty much) agree to follow the community. Thanks for suggesting I handle frustration and criticism very poorly, I'm not convinced by that, I think I handle incompetence and deliberate negligence poorly, but when working within a group, we can all pull together to get the best results. Too long we've put up with a group whose decision-making is akin to a papal conclave, and whose real work, communication and arbitration with those involved in these cases, is dished out to poor old clerks who just do what they're told, and offer the community no explanation as to why, other than "arbs told me to do that". I worked long and hard for around a decade as an admin, and I've already gone on record as stating that I won't take cases which involve editors, good, bad or indifferent, that I've encountered significantly on the way. And now I've got two kids, there's even more emphasis for me on the fact that Wikipedia is a project, a pursuit of excellence, but not the be-all-and-end-all. I'm not here to "police" Wikipedia as so many of the Arbs and other candidates appear to be, I'm here to contribute, maintain, promote, enhance and enrich Wikipedia, and that includes improving the community's experiences with those who (should be) arbitrating disputes, not just handing out punishments after months of pointless drama. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Officially, Arbcom is supposed to deal primarily with conduct disputes, not content, and to interpret and apply policy, not make it. But it has always seemed to me that most conduct disputes have their origin in disagreements over content, and that Arb Com has in fact been most successful when actually dealing with content concerns, as in the pseudoscience and nationalism related cases, even though it may have to word it indirectly. And it has also always seemed to me that the necessary interpretation of policy can in effect amount to making policy, as with the cases involving BLP. What do you think? DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Arbcom decisions frequently make specific interpretations of policy to apply to certain situations and certain individuals which is a little unhealthy and unwieldy. It's also indicative that those policies are open to too much interpretation. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4. There have been very few actual arb com cases in the last few years, which might indicate that the community is doing better with its problems, and that the basic rules are becoming well understood. It seems to me that most of the business at arb com has been dealing with ban appeals, which is done on the mailing list, and often involves considerations of privacy. I'm not sure we do very well at this. What do you think about this? DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

   No, this is not handled well at all, no real information is provided, simply a statement of fact and no discussion is entered into. It's like the Arbcom think their decision-making is infallible and unquestionable, which of course is patently untrue; Arbcom are here to serve the community, not the other way round. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6. When I joined arb com 3 years ago, most arbs thought that the terms of use were not necessarily enforceable policy at the English Wikipedia, and that arb com has no role in its enforcement. I strongly disagreed at the time--I think they are inherently policy to the extent they are applicable, and arb com has the same jurisdiction as for other behavioral policy. (Of course, we may want or need to interpret it further--and certainly can extend it.) To some degree, I think it possible that the prevailing opinion may have been changing a little towards the position I hold. Where do you stand? DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

   I see at as no different from other policies, and therefore it is necessary for Arbcom (and the rest of us) to ensure it is enforced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

8. As I see it, most arbs are of the opinion that the requirement that editors avoid outing applied equally to good faith and bad faith editors. I however think that it ought to be interpreted to apply with much less rigor to those who appear to be editing in bad faith or deliberately against the terms of use. (I recognize the difficulty in deciding initially who is editing in bad faith) Where do you stand? DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

   This seems odd to me, and once again is an indicator of the failure of perhaps some to actually communicate with those involved in cases. No-one should be outed, rigor should be applied evenly to everyone, regardless of someone's opinion of them is that they're editing in good, bad or indifferent faith. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. To quote your answer to MastCell: I've also been on the receiving end of what I would judge to be borderline incompetence from a number of individuals who simply aren't actually fulfilling a role which is designated "arbitration" [...] I think I handle incompetence and deliberate negligence poorly, but when working within a group, we can all pull together to get the best results. If what you say is true, and you are elected, you are likely to be elected to a committee of up to 14 of these "individuals" that you describe above. Given that, do you think that you can all pull together to get the best results.? --Rschen7754 06:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes otherwise I wouldn't have put my name forward for this. We can improve things, it just takes some impetus to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4. You are currently under the following arbitration sanction: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence. If you are elected, what do you believe should happen to that sanction? Do you believe that its existence would affect your ability to perform your duties (including commenting on cases and providing rationale for decisions) as an arbitrator? --Rschen7754 06:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   The sanction can be appealed just like any other sanction. I have already taken advice from admins/Arbs on how to express my opinions in such matters without breaching the terms of the sanction. So, in answer to your question, no I don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Hi. Thanks for stepping forward. I am asking this same question to all candidates. What can the committee do that the rest of the community cannot? SilkTork (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Desysop admins by consensus rather than by process. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Greetings, TRM, and thanks for putting yourself forward. As I'm sure you are aware, I have the greatest respect for your content work, and I would very much like to vote for a person who has Wikipedia's best interests at heart. That said: It is probably fair to say that you are currently feeling aggrieved about ARBCOM as an institution, particularly with respect to how they handled your case. If elected, you are going to have to work with many of the folks who passed the sanctions on you. How will you ensure this does not impede your ability to work with them? Vanamonde (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I think I've expanded on this quite a bit in previous answers, with a general theme that I have, and will, be able to work with people with whom I personally disagree, for my entire professional career. That sanctions were passed on me is neither here nor there, nor, as I answered above, should I be treated with special care because of that. My sanctions will remain in place regardless of any kind of change of status, we're all editors and none of us are special, so as and when I get a chance to appeal, then I will do so, without prejudice and without the outcome affecting my ability to work with my potential colleagues. You nailed it when you said I felt "aggrieved" and that's the only reason why someone like me would even consider running here. I want to make Arbcom a better place, remind its members1 that its just here as a service to the community, not that it's an overlord conclave which seems beyond reproach and which doesn't communicate with individuals, except usually anonymously via the poor old clerks. Nothing can impede my ability to work with the other members of the committee. (P.S. thanks for your compliments by the way.) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. On this page, I have drafted some detailed proposals (already written as formal motions) which would reform ArbCom's policies and procedures. As an arbitrator, would you propose and/or vote for these motions? If you only support some of the proposals, please name the ones that you support and the ones that you do not support. If you do not support a particular proposal, please elaborate as to what, if anything, would make the proposal acceptable to you.

2. I’m asking all candidates this question and will use the answers to make a voter guide. Please state whether you will enforce the Terms of Use section on ‘’’paid editing’’’. Should all undeclared paid editors be blocked (after one warning)? Are administrators allowed to accept payment for using their tools for a non-Wiki employer? Can admins do any paid editing and still maintain the neutrality needed to do their work? (Note that only one admin AFAIK has declared as a paid editor since the ToU change). Do you consider the work done at WP:COIN to be useful, or is it just another “drama board”? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   As far as I'm concerned, Arbcom don't get to select which elements of the terms of use they enforce, so I would enforce them as written. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been WP:AE-blocked twice within the past seven months [1]; you currently are under three indefinite behavioral sanctions placed by ArbCom, including a one-way IBan with an administrator [2]; and you were desysopped (or rather you resigned the mop when it was clear desysopping was inevitable) a year ago [3]. Given those things:

2. What do you believe qualifies you for ArbCom?

   A decade of experience of working on Wikipedia, two decades of working professionally with teams of different people, and two small children. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4. Why not re-run for WP:RfA before applying to ArbCom?

   I see no purpose in that. There are plenty of Arbs who are already admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6. What do you believe makes you sufficiently neutral to be an Arbitrator?

   See the multiple replies I've given already, I can detach myself from personal feelings in a professional role. I do it every single day. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you think an encyclopedia should be enslaved to the service of the news items on its front page?

   No, I'm sure that needs further discussion, but no. ITN is one aspect of the main page which currently seems to mostly meet people's expectations but we now have WikiTRIBUNE to make the final solution complete on news reporting, I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4. Can the English language wikipedia learn anything from other language variants?

   I'm sure it can, but right now, and in my own personal experience, English language Wikipedia is the most robust and diligent of all Wikipedias and attempts to ensure compliance with policies like WP:V and WP:BLP while other major Wikipedias (French, German etc) summarily ignore such requirements. What do you think we could learn from them? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6. Do you think Wikipedia Administrators are in any way "more important" that other editors?

   No. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

8. What role, if any, should User:Jimbo Wales have at the encyclopedia? ... and what about Jimmy Wales?

   Jimbo is a user and an admin (and some other flags) but needs to be careful where he treads because because see him as a super-user, and he's simply not at all in any way, shape or form. He may have the buttons, but he's bound by the project's policies and the expectations of the community who realise that he is, like us all, just a contributor here. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10. If an editor attempted to amuse you, by adding a tangential link to an image caption on your User page, but wholly unwittingly reminded you of a deceased family member, do you think it's important to bear a grudge with that editor for more than eight months and to suggest a WP:IBAN with that editor?

    I think taking the piss out of people who have died from strokes is wholly inappropriate in any forum, unwittingly or otherwise. Bearing a grudge? No, but naturally it might have influenced our interactions because I don't like people who take the piss out of my dead family members or the tragic way in which they slowly died over a period of seven years. As a possible member of Arbcom, I'd just recuse myself from dealing with any case in which such an editor who tried, but failed, to amuse me, was involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I know how busy you are with the Main page every day, TRM, so please feel free to totally ignore these questions for the next 12 days, if you just can't find the odd precious few minutes, or until WP demands a recount, of course.

No problem, from Vienna, my thanks for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt replies. You've still got 11 days to reconsider any of your answers! Good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. @The Rambling Man: I have the utmost respect for you as an editor and have gone on record to praise you in the past. I am currently of the belief that you would be ideal for the job with one caveat, which has been alluded to in many other questions, that being your history with ARBCOM. Having looked at the run-ins extensively, I can see that I understand why you would be justifiably frustrated with the system. My query is, however, whether or not that you carry over into your own influence on ARBCOM if elected. How well would you integrate with existing members? Would you have the capacity to be past issues behind you to fulfill your role at ARBCOM? Not to accuse you of having an axe to grind, but one could envision how ghosts from the past could create problems in the future. Thus, I would like an assurance that ARBCOM activites would come before personal issues, no matter how difficult it is to do so. Can you provide me with one, TRM?

   Indeed, I think I've tried to answer this kind of question in a few ways, but this is the way I see it: we all have to deal with people in life with which we don't agree, or have personal issues. I regularly have to integrate at work with indiviudals in a highly charged atmosphere with high-end technology systems for high-stress situtations with clients around the globe, and I do a very good job. I have no issue at all with starting out with a clean slate with any extant Arbcom individual(s); indeed my expectation would be (fairly or otherwise) that it would be much easier for me to do that than for them to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. What is broken in Wikipedia’s system? Obviously there’s much politics, which I shy away from, still the thing’s free, with millions of articles of variable quality yet all offering some initial information on a topic. I’ve written or extensively revised and expanded two articles for Wikipedia, on Egyptological researches: Book of the Dead of Qenna (created 2014), Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum (revised & expanded 2017). I think my efforts of decent worth, although amateur; I’d love a real pro to edit my articles yet doubt one ever will. I guess I’ll vote for you; I’m tired of police in our security-oriented age. We’re here to add information to this crowdsourced, non-professional encyclopedia, even if financial and administrative concerns intrude. But pray do answer, what’s broken? Jessegalebaker (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   What's primarily broken is that far too many indivudals are here to police Wikipedia without actually contributing to its encyclopedic content. While we need some level of oversight, the volume of users who have done little here other than to rack up user rights and edits to AN, ANI etc is astonishing. This project is about encyclopedic content, and without that, we might as well shut down the servers and call it a day. Less "monitoring", more "content building". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since our first administrators were appointed, more than five and a half million articles have been added to the product. Maybe the ratio of content builders to police/monitors hasn't hurt the project as much as you suggest.Moriori (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no link between the early admin promotions (which were something of a joke) and the building of content. Early adopters of Wikipedia (like me) found it very easy to build content and had no interest in admins. The fact that we have very few operational admins left now with such a huge tome of work somewhat contracdicts your position. In any case, it's not really admins that are broken, I didn't actually say that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Viewpoint 1: Policy should be interpreted as it is written and enforced as such. If the goals are not being met then the policy should be reviewed and perhaps changed but in the meantime this is the status quo. Viewpoint 2: Policy should be interpreted for its intent over the wording. Where conflict arises between wording and intent, either do not enforce or possibly customize enforcement to try to achieve the intent per IAR. How would you describe your own viewpoint relative to the two opposing views above?
    — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Viewpoint 2 is by far the preferable approach from my perspective. Wikipedia is an evolving project and what is policy today may need more subtle interpretation or adjustment tomorrow. And unless we want to have the turning circle of an aircraft carrier (which is what changing policy is like here), we need to be able to be dynamic. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]