Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Kelapstick/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from Oshwah

Other than having the adequate technical skills and knowledge required, and having the level of experience consistent with being granted the role(s), what other specific areas, aspects, skills, and/or traits would you look for and personally want to see in a candidate who is applying to be appointed as a CheckUser or Oversighter? What specific areas (outside of knowledge and skill, experience) in an otherwise-good candidate would cause you to halt, make a complete about-face, and oppose their candidacy for Checkuser or Oversighter if you were to see or find it?
In short, is the user in question generally trustworthy, and are they an ass-hat. There are other things to consider, like a need for additional Functionaries. For exmple, if it is decided that only three additional Oversighters are requried and there are ten applicants, it doesn't make sense to appoint ten, because access to the CUOS tools should be on an as-needed basis, not an as-desired basis.

Questions from User:Scope creep

Would you say you were elitist?
I have no idea what you mean by that.
What is your view on the German war effort case that was taking place during the summer, with a focus on the decision. Please give me a complete analysis of the case, and describe what was unusual about that particular case.
I am going to start off by saying, I will not be providing a complete analysis of the case. This is not a high school examination, it's an offer to serve in a volunteer position. Secondly, thus far you have asked five questions of me, two of which are requesting long detailed analysis. This is effectively monopolizing the process with questions that serve no real purpose (i.e. what value does having me write an essay on the German War Effort case serve to this process?) If you have a specific question about the decisions that were made on that case, please ask, but it's rather inappropriate to ask for a complete analysis pointing out unusual aspects of it. What does unusual mean anyway? With regards to an ArbCom case, there is noting "usual" about them, in my opinion.
Select two arbitration cases that went to full conclusion, and explain exactly what aspects of that case you agree on, and what aspect you don't agree on. What would you change in each. I am looking for a detailed answer.
Feel free to look at the final decision of any case that I took part in between 2016 and 2017, you'll be able to see the aspects that I agreed with and disagreed with.
What is your view on discretionary sanctions? Is there any other process of engagement that could be substituted and provide better results?
I don't care much for discretionary sanctions, but it's a compromise between getting rid of someone outright and directing them away from problematic areas. I don't know if there is a better process, two-way communication is always better, but not everyone is open to that.
You stated in 2017 Doubtful I will be running again, although I am willing to host the Lobster Bake/Chili Cook-off again next year. What changed your mind? Is it possibly a half hearted run?
In December 2017 I was moving from Nova Scotia to Calgary, so I had no intention of running in 2017. As late as this week (or maybe last) I had said I had no intention of running. I changed my mind this morning. I wouldn't say it's a half hearted run, but I am not overly concerned if I get elected or not. I am offering to serve in a volunteer position which I have held in the past. If the community wants to take me up on that offer, great, if there are candidates who decide to run with better qualifications than me, even better.

Question from Gerda Arendt

Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here?
Having served two years on the committee with OR, I can honestly say that she is one of the most thoughtful Wikipedians I have ever had the pleasure of working with. While the two of us have disagreed on many subjects, we do take a similar stance on civility, and in this instance, I agree with her. That isn't to say I wouldn't have accepted the case (I don't recall it, I think I was inactive for the later part of 2017 and I haven't read the actual request, just her decline), but the second and third paragraphs I can certainly support.

Questions from 28bytes

Hi Kelapstick. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this series of events, in which a former administrator created an undisclosed alternate account to evade a ban on editing political BLPs. It is my understanding (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) that ArbCom was made aware of this in 2017, when you were on the committee. If so, it seems the committee's options would be to (A) rescind the ban and let the editor continue making these edits, (B) keep the ban in place and block the accounts for sockpuppetry, or (C) keep the ban in place but allow the editor to violate it "on the downlow." It seems option (C) was picked. I'd be curious to know if you supported that decision at the time, and if, in retrospect, you think it was the right decision. Thanks.
Hi 28bytes, there is a little more to it than simply ArbCom was made aware of this in 2017, much of which is not fit for print on this page. I will say this however, personally my belief is the Arbitration Committee cannot be expected to conduct a behavioural investigation every time someone approaches them with an accusation of sockpuppetry as part of an unblock request. My position on the matter was since the accusation had nothing to do with the request at hand, and running a checkuser would provide no useful information, there was not much the committee as a whole could do. If an individual arbitrator wanted to tackle the sockpuppetry accusation on their own, they were free to do so. (My exact wording was "Investigation into the sage/cirt connection can be done on the side. If anyone has any interest in that.", since you're looking to my position specifically). So I guess the answer is (D) No reliable evidence was provided, so we did nothing. Was that the right decision, probably not. In a perfect world, one of us would have taken the initiative to generate an SPI. But back to my previous point, ArbCom (and its individual members) cannot be expected to look into every accusation made by a blocked editor.
Recently an editor placed links to offsite court documents involving an ArbCom candidate on that candidate's question page. Without commenting on this specific case (unless you want to), what factors would you take into consideration when determining whether to allow or suppress similar links in an ArbCom election, or an RFA, or an AN/I report?
I am going to answer generically (as a former Oversighter), not situation-specific if that's alright. The first response should be suppress quickly, and figure it out later. Suppression is easily reversible (similar to Revision Delete), so there is no harm in having something temporarily hidden, and reverse it if the it is deemed not suppression worthy later on. Regarding appropriateness, the defining threshold "Has the information has been made public by the user in question, on Wikipedia previously." That isn't to say that it's an absolute bright line, and as always, context matters. It is typical for an Oversighter to err on the side of caution, and suppress something more marginal, than argue that it shouldn't be and leave it out in the open. Additionally, one should consider the opinion of the user the information is about. For example, I would hope that if someone posted court documents about me on Wikipedia, that before deciding it was going to be un-suppressed, that the Oversighter in question would at least ask me about it.

Question from Rschen7754

When you were on the Committee, what were your primary contributions? What would you do differently, if elected again? --Rs chen 7754 06:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Initially I focused on updating processes such as removing the BASC, and clearing the backlog of BASC cases that needed to be heard. Previously I wasn't particularly active on ARCA issues, so I intend to be more involved in that, and clearing out requests that come in via email (significantly more so than I was previously). Email responses are a big job, which often falls on too few people, and it should not.

Question from a nobody

So, whatever happened happened to the supposed "Lobster Bake/Chili Cook-off"? Do you not feel ashamed now that you were reminded of this broken promise? And were you wearing your Alabama t-shirt when you broke that promise? Drmies (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Twice at least I offered to host a lobster bake, but nobody showed up. That was when I lived in Nova Scotia, and had access to discount shellfish however. Now it's all Alberta Beef.

Questions from Alex Shih

What is your stance on improving the transparency of ArbCom, and the idea of maintaining decorum and respect in mailing list discussions?
I think that transparency within ArbCom is important, and I think, when I was on the committee we tried to be transparent, although I am sure other people would disagree. Unfortunately often when people most want transparency (or at least to know more information), it coincides with instances where providing that information is not appropriate for privacy reasons. So far as decorum and respect in mailing list discussions, I am not sure what you mean. I don't recall any issues with that when I was on the committee, I find it hard to believe that it has devolved significantly within twelve months.
When, how and to what extent do you think any editor should be informed if they are being actively discussed by ArbCom in a matter that would immediately affect their future in this community?
It certainly depends on what the issue is, who brought it up, and who the editor is. Broadly speaking, if ArbCom decides to look into issues with an editor, they should always let the editor have a chance to address the concern directly before any action is taken. Whether that happens prior to any investigation depends on the circumstance. For example Sockpuppetry is often investigated without the user in question knowing, there is no reason that should be any different if it is being discussed by the Arbitration Committee.

Question from Peacemaker67

Given the lack of attempts at dispute resolution that preceded it, what are your thoughts on the decision of ArbCom to take on the German War Effort case this last year?
In this case you can either take the case (as was done), or flip it back to the community in order to go through the motions of prior dispute resolution, which is effectively just going through the motions until it comes back to the Arbitration Committee in 6-12 months anyway. So the question to be asked is "Is it worth it to wait until it comes back, or should we just deal with it now?" I don't care for process for the sake of process, so if the expectation is that something declined would be accepted after a few half-hearted attempts at dispute resolution, you might as well deal with it right then and there.

Questions from Collect

Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?
No.
If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits?
Not-disinterested is not the same as not impartial. Naturally everything must be assessed on a case by case basis, however broadly speaking if an arbitrator has an active history with a user, they should recuse on matters relating to that user (which appears to be what you’re getting at).
Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually far from home for an extended period, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow fully reasoned responses to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"?
It can be appropriate, however in nearly all cases someone should be given an ample opportunity to respond to allegations of impropriety. Accommodations should be given when a user is away, after all we are all volunteers here. Even when we are on the receiving end of an ArbCom case. Regarding your last question, yes.

Question from Softlavender

What was the most rewarding aspect of your previous time spent on ArbCom? Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that I found it very rewarding, I mean think about it. It's a thankless job, where you spend most of the time completing tasks which very few people ever see or know about, and when people do know about your actions, you end up being called corrupt, incompetent, and/or ineffective (sometimes all three!). Really nobody in their right mind would run for ArbCom (and look at Doug, hes running for a third term!) I suppose there is a sense of accomplishment when something gets done, and the belief that you are doing the right thing, and helping out. Having said that, without exception, I did enjoy working with everyone on the committee(s) while I was a member. So there is that.

Question from SashiRolls

What was the most rewarding aspect of your previous time spent as founder of the Bacon Cabal 9 years ago yesterday?
I would say that 2009 was probably the most fun I had on Wikipedia. It was great, writing articles about absurd concepts like chocolate covered bacon, and getting it featured in the DYK section on the main page. I really enjoyed that, of course the DYK criteria and process was a lot more lax back then, so it was significantly easier. But I had a lot of fun with it.
Do you think Cirt's co-founding of the Bacon Project in 2010, and their subsequent joining of the Bacon Cabal immediately before abandoning their account may have influenced your decision not to pursue inquiry into the Sagecandor/Cirt SPI request mailed to you in November 2017 (Cf. Question-Set #4 above)?
Short answer, no. Longer answer, I don't recall having any significant conversations, or doing much collaboration with Cirt back then, or ever for that matter. That's not to say we never worked on the same article, or never spoke, I just don't think we have every had any discussions of any significance. During those days I tended to collaborate with Drmies, ChildofMidnight, and Bongomatic mostly. I do remember one article he created off hand (Don't Forget the Bacon!), but really that's about it. I know who Cirt is, in as much as I know the name, but that is about the extent of my history with them (this shows as much). Did the fact that someone I seldom interacted with, created a mostly dormant WikiProject, of which I am a member, affect my decision as an arbitrator, seven years later? No, not at all.
Do you think all candidates should indicate which cabal they represent?
It can't hurt. For full disclosure, I am a member of the Bacon Cabal, and was at one time a frequent contributor to the Canadian Wikipedian's Notice Board.

Question from Cinderella157

Arb policy makes a requirement for transparency and Arb cases make an explicit statement of intent to reach a "fair" decision.
1. What are, in your opinion, the "principles and spirit" (per WP:5P5) that underpin the policy and statement?
2. The policy in particular, requires "detailed rationales for decisions related to cases". Please comment on this duty as it might apply to you (say, as a drafting arbitrator) and the committee as a whole, in respect to how this duty is discharged (noting the underlying principles), particularly where the evidence presented might be in conflict.
3. Do you consider that this duty has been complied with and what might you do to improve compliance? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) The committee should be upholding the five pillars in their assessment of cases (you'll not that the first few principles in all decisions relate to them). 2) Detailed rationale has not always been present in decisions, and while I will endeavor to ensure I provide rationale, it hasn't always, nor will it always be the case. 3) As per above, it hasn't always, and I will try to make it so. However as mentioned, one can only try.
There is something of a theme in questions regarding civility (and personal attacks). My question pertains to the conduct of cases (starting at the request phase) and not to cases about civility and personal attacks. I note that an ArbCom case is a place to address grievances and it is appropriate to make reasonable allegations in "good faith" supported by links. WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL is relevant.
1. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements in a case that contained derogatory gender-related comments by way of commentary?
2. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements/submissions (such as evidence) in a case that were a significant misrepresentation of context? While this is uncivil, in such a context, I believe that it might rise to the level of a personal attack by virtue of the potential consequences if the statement/submission is taken at face value.
3. While Arbs are not infallible, the community endowers Arbs with significant power and trust, and with virtually no recourse. What would be your expectations and your actions where an Arb has made an uncivil comment (rising to the level of a personal attack) openly in the course of a case? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) Derogatory remarks, irrespective of if they are gender related or not, should be handled the same way as they would be anywhere else on Wikipeida. There is no special rule for ArbCom case pages. 2) You are suggesting misrepresentation as being inherently uncivil, which isn't the case, and then suggesting that committee members will take all evidence, even if misrepresented at face value (which they will not). 3) Discussion should always be the first course of action, I usually prefer a private word rather than a public scolding.
In my assessment of Civil POV pushing: this behaviour is not readily apparent to those not affected; it requires a "body" of evidence over an extended period to establish a case; and, ArbCom has a poor record in dealing with it – perhaps, because of the dealing with the amount of evidence to sift through or because restrictions on the size of submissions. Please comment, with any insights or solutions you might offer. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Word limits are difficult because on the one hand, you often need lots of detail in order to present a case, however some people are able to talk for hours and not say anything, which is difficult for people to process any useful information. My advice to people presenting evidence, try and stick to the word limits, try to reduce your word count before asking for an extension. ArbCom is usually willing to provide extensions, particularly for the main parties to a case, but at least try.

Question from Shrike

There are currently ongoing ARCA could you state your opinion about the issue [1].
Palestine-Israel articles are some of the most complicated issues to deal with as an Arb, in my opinion, and having remedies which muddy the waters don't help. I agree with Kingsindian that it should be simplified. I agree with NYB that no qualification following the statement Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense can lead to hasty blocking without warning, by uninformed parties (particularly new editors). Some form of administrative discretion is required, although I don't know off hand how to write that.

Question from Liz

Hello, Kelapstick. As you have previously served or are currently serving on the Arbitration Committee, will you state what you believe is biggest misconception most editors have about how ARBCOM works? What do you think editors SHOULD know about the operation of ARBCOM and how arbitrators collaborate that we probably don't realize? Any aspect of ARBCOM's operation that you would change if you could? Thanks and good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the community by and large has very little idea of what goes on behind the scenes, I know when I served, it was eye opening . Really editors should understand that being an Arb is very boring and mundane. What I would like to see is more use of the ArbWiki than was in place when I was on the committee. It is a format (i.e. a wiki) that everyone is familiar with and lends itself better to collaboration than a mailing list does.

Question from Fram

Above, you indicate that you consider ArbCom transparancy important. During the arbcom unban / community reban of User:Guido den Broeder, Arbcom first never announced the unban or the accompanying restrictions (never mind discussing this prior to unbanning a known troublemaker), and when things went downhill, refused to even make public how each arbcom member had voted with regards to the unblock. You are one of the members then who has, to my knowledge, never declared your position in this. This is not about making private communications public, this is bacis accountability: if we don't know who supported which position in an ArbCom decision, we have no way of judging your actions there. What was your position on the Guido den Broeder unban, and what (if anything) would you do differently in similar situations? Fram (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fram. It appears that I was inactive during the period that unban request came in, and did not participate in the discussion or vote on it. I don't know if I would have supported or opposed an unban in that particular situation. Sometimes it is good to give the user the benefit of the doubt, especially after several years. Sometimes, as is the case here, it doesn't work out. Better communication to the community is always a good thing in cases like these, and sometimes community consultation can be as well, provided it doesn't turn into an unnecessary public flogging.

Question from Atsme

Do you have the time and patience necessary to devote to this highly taxing responsibility, and by that I mean not judging an editor based on preconceived notions without careful examination of the case or simply agreeing with aspersions cast by opposing editors you may know and trust without personally investigating the diffs in the context the challenged editor intended, or waiting until other arbs have posted their conclusions and simply agreeing in an effort to avoid making waves? My primary concern is that some arbs are accepting the position when it’s quite obvious they neither have the time nor the patience required to actually read the diffs provided as evidence to make sure they were presented in the context originally intended by the challenged editor.
Probably not. And that goes for most Arbitrators who have some combination of a full time job/family/social life outside of Wikipedia/participation in any activity away from a computer. Being an Arb is a large volunteer role, and while it would be great to have people who do it full time, it is just not practical. As such there will always be times when arbitrators are away, or do not give something their full attention.

I just hope that if you're elected, Kelapstick, you won't be an arb whose time constraints cause you to not give a case your full attention. I trust that you will recuse yourself if you're unable to devote the necessary time to research it. I can't think of too many things worse for an editor to face than an ArbCom decision resulting from the committee's lack of time to devote to this very important responsibility, be it an original case or an appeal. I'm of the mind that half-baked judgments have a chilling effect and tend to cause more harm to the project than some of the behavior that resulted in the case being heard. Anyway, I wish you luck, and thank you for volunteering and for your candid response. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Atsme, in past, I would always mark myself inactive when I was unavailable for extended periods, and of course, I would do so again, should I be elected. ArbCom takes a lot of time, and while everyone goes in with the best of intentions, the amount of time commitment it can be takes many people off guard. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, Kelapstick. It made a huge difference. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Carrite

Hello, and thank you for running for ArbCom. There are a number of off-wiki venues for criticism of Wikipedia content, policy, processes, and participants. Such sites include Wikipediocracy, Genderdesk, Wikipedia Sucks!, Wikipedia Review (mark 2), and Reddit. Do you read content or participate by writing at any of these venues? If so, which? Do you feel that such sites have positive value in identifying and correcting such problems and abuses that emerge at Wikipedia or do you feel that such sites are wholly negative in essence, without redeeming value? Carrite (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am registered on Wikipediocracy, under my current username. I read it on occasion, but probably haven't in over a year. I don't think I have posted at all on it. I may have read Wikipedia Review at one point. The others I don't believe so, and I accidentally make it to Reddit, on occasion. Wikipediocracy can be both an interesting and informative view. I don't think that these sites are entirely negative, and can have redeeming values. Whether the good outweighs the bad, I cannot say, as I haven't spent much time on them.
The Wikimedia foundation began issuing site bans (“SanFranBans”) of Wikipedians deemed unacceptable for participation several years ago, beginning by making a case for such exclusions on child protection grounds, but gradually disposing of inconvenient individuals for a range of other transparently obvious reasons. These exclusions are made by one or a very few individuals with no oversight and no process for appeal. Do you feel that this growing trend of WMF permanently banning individuals from participation on all Wikimedia projects is problematic, or is this intervention beneficial? Do you feel that each and every ban so far implemented by San Francisco has been justified? Do you feel that San Francisco banning individuals for reasons beyond child protection or potential physical violence is an intervention into Arbcom's purview as Wikipedia's discipline committee?
The Arbitration Committee (when I was on it) would be made aware of SanFranBans out of courtesy. We were not provided the reason, however (often it is pretty obvious). Is the increase problematic? Not so much that it outweighs the benefit. I can't say that I agree with every one which has been implemented (at one point I still held out hope for Reguyla/Kumioko), and I know there are some which should be implemented, but have not. To state that Arbcom has a mandate as Wikipedia's discipline committee is an outright incorrect statement, notwithstanding that, I don't see it as the WMF encroaching on "our turf".

Thank you for your answers. Carrite (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from power~enwiki

I hate to basically repeat Atsme's question, but I don't feel it has been sufficiently answered. The complaints about the slow responsiveness of ARBCOM are legendary at this point. In the past 2 years, you have 10 or fewer edits in 7 months; and have exceeded 100 edits in only 6 of the last 24 months. Edit count isn't everything, but a quick glance at your edit history suggests that this isn't because your edits are unusually time-consuming. I don't see any reason in the earlier responses that the free time you can dedicate to Wikipedia will increase over the next two years. Why should I support your candidacy over that of other candidates who expect to dedicate more time to the ARBCOM role? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If being very active (relative term) on the project within the last 12-24 months is important to you when it comes to selecting an ArbCom candidate, than you should vote for someone else. And you have a fine selection of candidates to choose from. I can’t make any pledge beyond saying I will take an active role in the committee, and commit as much time to it as I am able to, which will be significantly more than I am committing to at the moment (I know that’s not setting the bar very high).

Question from Feminist

How can Wikipedia better communicate its processes to outsiders?
I don't think it's possible. Wikipedia has dozens of processes, policies, guidelines, summary guidelines, newcomer guidelines, etc. The issue is people don't read them. Humans seem to be incapable of reading instructions before diving into something. We can't force people to read things before getting involved, how many times have you actually read terms and conditions before clicking the "agree" box? (Rhetorical question, I don't expect an answer)

Thank you. feminist (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Guerillero

Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. I am rehashing most of my 2015 questions because I don't think that these issues have been resolved over the past three years. Enjoy!

Current Disputes and Cases

What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?
If a topic ban will not serve the purpose of keeping the user out of trouble, it needs to be taken to the next step. That next step is usually an outright ban.
Nearly every case involves violations of the civility policy in some way, shape, or form. At one time, a remedy called a "Civility Parole" existed but it fell out of vogue. Today, the only tools in the current Arbitrator's toolboxes to deal with civility issues are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. What new and creative ways would you bring to the table to solve this problem?
We tried the insulting/belittling remedy on The Rambling Man case, and I don't think it was very effective. It was later amended by motion. I think that things start to go pear shaped when people try to get too clever with remedies. The become confusing and convoluted. I think the committee is better served when it acts as a blunt instrument and makes things simple and easy to understand.
Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?
I stand by my 2015 answer. If an admin needs to be banned as part of a remedy, they should be. I think for the most part (I haven't done any research into it) that they will often be desysopped rather than blocked (although I am sure that isn't the case 100% of the time), which isn't right. It shouldn't be a progressive matrix, where only non-admins can be banned.
Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?
I hate admonishments. I even hate the word. They serve as a warning that the editor has been put on notice. I think they have value, but that doesn't mean I have to like them.

Insider Baseball

Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?
I think community feedback in cases is important, provided it doesn't bog down the process. So yes it's useful.

Question from Beyond My Ken

Lots o' people seem to think this election is about civility, for some reason. ArbCom deals with the behavior of editors, of course, so civility will often play a part in the cases that are requested, and in those that are accepted and adjudicated, but damaging the integrity of the encyclopedia is also a behavioral issue, and it's one that has the potential for sinking Wikipedia by destroying the public's faith in the information we provide. Fortunately, much of the NPOV, racist, sexist, ethnic-biased and nationalistic edits and editors get caught by editors and admins, and those cases never reach the Committee, but I'm concerned that our current apparent fixation on civility might be distracting us from the more serious problem of NPOV editing. ArbCom has done a great deal -- with Discretionary Sanctions -- in trying to control this, but I wonder if there isn't more that can be done. Do you have any thoughts about how the Committee can assist the community -- both editors and admins -- to protect the integrity of our product?
Our (Wikipedia's) most important function is not to protect the editors, it's to protect the integrity of the product (content). Everything else is to serve that purpose. Maintaining civility maintains (to some degree) our most important asset (editors), and thereby protecting the product, as with no editors we would have no product. ArbCom can only protect the integrity of the product by sanctioning editors (or by making certain actions sanctionable). They have no mandate to do things any other way.

Question from Amanda

If there was a block appeal to ArbCom by email for an indefinitely blocked user for spamming or BLP violations, and you were the one to reply to the user, how would you handle it? Would you discuss the block on the list first?
First reply as you are aware is always acknowledging the email. I would usually hesitate to handle a request without some form of input from other members. Outside of onvious declines. Maybe that should change to speed up paperwork.
Can you provide one diff of a well reasoned argument where you disagreed with the majority and took an unpopular view? The more recent, the more unpopular, the better.
Probably not.
Are you going to read each and every ArbCom email that comes across your desk?
Absolutely not.
Admin socking is a rare area ArbCom has the remit to deal with. If your brought a case of admin socking, are you willing to go through the investigatory process and potentially vote to desysop an admin? Especially if your met with silence (or a lack of a defense) from the admin?
Yes, Yes, and Yes.
How familiar are you with the privacy policy and access to non-public data policy? What is one part you find interesting about one of them and why?
I am familiar with the overall concept, but couldn't quote them word for word. I don't find much about the privacy and NPD policy interesting.

Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:Smallbones

Could you discuss your general philosophy toward enforcing our rules on undisclosed paid editing? Another candidate has said that our rules on UPE are weak, but the terms of use are quite specific: UPE is prohibited. What level of "proof" is required before you'd ban somebody for paid editing? Do admins need to follow these rules, or should they be held to a higher standard?
I am against UPE. Our terms of use and site specific policies don't always match, particularly on paid editing (at least they didn't). I don't know what sort of proof I would require, every case is different, and I would say physically walking into the room while someone was engaging in unpaid editing would be enough, however a rumour from an editor with a grudge would not be enough to ban. The threshold lies somewhere in the middle. Admins shouldn't be held to a higher standard, they should be held to the same standard as anyone else, and using admin tools to aid in UPE should result in an immediate desysop at a minimum.
This summer I sent a private complaint to arbcom about an administrator who had very obviously inserted material from one of his employer's press releases into the article about the company without making a COI or Paid Editing disclosure. The arbcom ruling was that the admin was not paid editor, but had a conflict of interest. He was not required to declare the COI. I was not informed about how the proceedings were being conducted, or who actually voted on the decision, or why the admin was not considered to be a paid editor, or even why he did not have to declare his COI. I was informed in a very short email signed by a single arb when the decision had been made, but there was very little information in the email. My request for clarification didn't result in any clarification. I understand you can't comment on the case itself, but can you comment on how such a case should be conducted?
I have said it before. Suggesting that editing about one's current employer in a neutral manner, weather disclosed or not, is "paid editing" is stupid. I have written about companies I have worked for, including while under their employ. Should I be summarily desysopped and blocked? There is a difference between paid editing and conflict of interest. Neither of which is prohibited, and the latter (of which I would say this is), is the lesser Wikipedia sin. So I don't know what your complaint is. It sounds like to ran to ArbCom to tattle on someone who was doing something you disagree with, and are upset that you didn't get the result you wanted. So you are asking everyone running for ArbCom how they would handle it, so you can feel vindicated. I don't know why you would be surprised that an email was signed by a single arb, Arbitrators all operate from independent email accounts. So messages can only come from an individual arbitrator. While usually they are signed "for the arbitration committee", they aren't always. Not everything that reaches the committee is formally voted on, often it is just a discussion with one person responding, and not every arbitrator takes part in every decision.

Questions from Hijiri88

What is your opinion on the essay WP:CPUSH, and do you think ArbCom should take special care in handling the kind of cases it is describing in the future?
I think civil POV pushing is tricky because the pusher can appear to be following "the rules", however most ArbCom members (if not all) are able to sift through the BS and realize when someone is trying to game the system in this manner.
Do you agree with this definition of "hounding", and the additional comment DGG left during ArbCom's !voting on it, particularly as it may relate to concerns over another editor's ability to properly read and interpret or concerns that an editor who has plagiarized a lot of text before may do so again? (Please note that this does not relate especially to my specific ArbCom case, nor to anyone involved in it; I just really like the definition as it is clearer than the one that's currently at WP:HOUND, and DGG's comment especially was something that honestly I would have liked to see enshrined in the final decision, and perhaps in any future statements ArbCom may make on the issue.)
Yes, I agree. Hounding is hounding when it is intended to be disruptive (broad term). If a user finds an editor that is causing issues, it is fully within their rights to go through their edits and find more similar issues. That is not inherently hounding.

Questions from David Tornheim

According to our article, Encyclopædia Britannica has a "critical reputation for general excellence". (See reputation). If so, can you explain why Britannica's article on acupuncture bears almost no resemblance to our article on acupuncture? Britannica suggests that it is useful alleviating pain. Our article casts a negative cloud, describing it as a pseudoscience, leaving the impression there is little reason to believe it is effective for treating even pain.
Brittanica uses a different editorial method than Wikipedia, and comparing the two is always a fools errand. If you find that acupuncture helps you, than use it. I don't go to Wikipedia for medical advice, for what should be reasons that are self-evident.
The U.S. National Institute of Health explains Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Health here. Is it appropriate for our articles to describe these treatments in WP:Wikivoice as pseudoscience? Is it appropriate to use Stephen Barrett's work and publication in Quackwatch as a primary source to discredit such treatments rather than publication in highly respected peer-reviewed medical journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine?
I don't know who Stephen Barrett is, and I don't know what Quackwatch is, but it sounds like something I have no interest in exploring further. However since this appears to be a veiled attempt to get my position on alternative medicine, I will say in broad terms I think it's bullshit. My wife likes to use essential oils, but I think they are a load of malarkey, yet somehow we still remain married. That should say something for my ability to remain neutral on the matter of alternative/complimentary medicine.
So if an editor appealed a decision at WP:AE where that editor had been topic banned from an alternative medicine article solely because they had tried to add material (with WP:RS) claiming that the treatment was sometimes effective, would you feel comfortable denying the appeal without even considering the RS because you have sufficient expertise in the field of alternative medicine to know that all of these treatments are, broadly speaking, "bullshit"?
Nowhere did I say that I had expertise in alternative medicine. I said I think it is bullshit.
Consider a controversial topic where two polarized groups of editors have strongly differing opinions on content, and one group regularly takes members of the other group to WP:AN/I to have them topic banned or indefinitely blocked—-not because of behavior that actually violates policy—-but primarily because the accusing group prefers not to deal with the "disruption" of editors who disagree with them on content. If members of the accusing group have sufficient control and influence at AN/I (from AN/I regulars, including both commentators and sympathetic admins), then that group can systematically eliminate all editors of the opposing group who disagree with them.
Do you believe this is going on? If so, does it serve our core policy of WP:NPOV that only editors from one side of a controversy are permitted to edit the topic? If it is going on, and the dispute comes to ArbCom, how would you handle it—-especially if ArbCom does not address content?
I think it sounds like you need to steer clear of areas where you will get in trouble. You'll find Wikipedia a much more enjoyable place that way.
Your response to my previous question leads me to believe you feel that working in areas of Wikipedia that involve conflict is not enjoyable. If you find conflict unpleasant, why are you running for ArbCom?
Anyone joining ArbCom because they enjoy conflict is joining for the wrong reason.
Concerning your previous response: Do you think that people who enjoy working in the area of mediation and dispute resolution--who are good at it and enjoy that kind of work--are trying to join ArbCom for the "wrong reason"? If so, what is the "right" reason to be on ArbCom?
Do you consider yourself to be effective at mediation and dispute resolution? If so, please explain why. Please explain what skills you have that set you apart from the other candidates. Were you able to resolve disputes amicably? Do you enjoy that kind of work?
It is often asserted that ArbCom cannot rule on content. I assume that means it will not decide specifically what should be in an article. But what if part of a dispute has to do with allegations that an editor(s) is lying about content in a source(s), using contradictory or double-standards as to what qualifies as WP:RS in the topic area, preferring inferior sources over superior sources, preferring outdated sources to current sources, dismissing high quality sources that articulate views the editor(s) does not want in the article, and other behavior that create bias in an article in violation of WP:NPOV. Do you believe ArbCom could handle such an issue? How about this case? Would you as an Arb be willing to look at a source’s content to verify whether an editor was or was not lying or misrepresenting the source's content? In sum, would you be willing to see if there are some serious sourcing issues?

Questions from Piotrus

Have you read this academic paper on ArbCom? Anything you agree/disagree/find interesting? (Disclaimer: I am the paper's author. I am not looking for pats on the back, but I am genuinely curious if you heard of it, read it, and what do you think of it; feel free to be critical of it, I am interested in your honest opinion on whether such research is useful, not in having my ego stroked). PS. If you reply here please WP:ECHO me back. TIA. PPS. I see. Would you like to read it? You can do it through Sci Hub if you don't have a university library access.
Piotrus, I have not read that paper.

Question from Banedon

Some time ago you voted for George Ho to be blocked [2] in relation to his dispute with TRM. With the benefit of two years of hindsight, do you think your vote was correct? Banedon (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do, the fact that he made this request in middle of voting on the TRM case furthered that. In hindsight, it was incorrect the way the remedy was framed. It should not have been a regular block which could be appealed via UTRS, it should have been a standard ArbCom ban. That was a mistake, and as one of the drafters of that case, the poor wording was my fault. Courcelles and Amanda were correct in their oppose rationale. Having said that, I don't know what George's edits have been like over the last couple years, my hope is that he is being productive (not to say he wasn't before), and uncontroversial.

Question from User:BU Rob13

In the past, the Arbitration Committee's role in dispute resolution had been described as "break[ing] the back[s]" of disputes the community is unable to resolve. Sometimes, this involved taking actions unpopular with the community or actions that were criticized as "draconian". More recently, I would say the Committee has become more hesitant to act unless their actions would have widespread support in the community, especially when those actions affect popular editors (or, less charitably, unblockables). At the center of this is a concern that taking decisive action on a dispute could lead to consequences, but in my experience, the default action of doing nothing often carries consequences as well. Further, doing nothing or taking only minor actions that do not resolve the underlying dispute often narrows the workable options available to the Committee, turning difficult-to-solve disputes into nearly unsolvable disputes. Could you comment on these two general schools of thought and what your approach to arbitration would be? More directly, do you think it is sometimes necessary to take unpopular or draconian actions to "break the back" of a dispute, or should such actions always be avoided?
ArbCom's whole existence is to make difficult decisions, even if it is unpopular. As the Iron Sheik would say, "Break the dispute's back, make it humble."

Question from User:Grillofrances

What do you think about reverting an edition which provides true information, 100% of the info is based on reliable sources, it's objective, grammatically correct, not offending anybody and useful for the article but it's reverted because a new editor just claims this info is redundant?
I think it sounds like a specific gripe about a content issue that ArbCom would not accept a case about.

Question from User:Ryk72

Discretionary sanctions (DS) now cover more than 30 topic areas (per WP:DSTOPICS).

In determining the "effectiveness" of DS, what factors should be taken into account?
In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?
In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS not been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?
In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS been effective in addressing conduct or behavioural issues, but otherwise detrimental to the encyclopedia? If any, in what ways & why?
Other than DS, what measures could ArbCom take in addressing conduct issues? Which, if any, of these alternatives should ArbCom take?
Of which of your contributions to Wikipedia are you most proud? Why?

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these questions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Barkeep49

I am curious about your philosophy around one sysop overriding the action of another. This question was spurred by this but I really am more curious about your bigger picture view than further explanation of that action.
I think that sysops overriding each other without discussion should be avoided unless there is a valid reason. I also think that provided there is a valid reason most sysops don’t mind being overridden. In this particular case it could take half the block length to get a response depending on how active the admins in question are. What is more logical, acting immediately or waiting for a response?