Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Bradv/Questions

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Gerda

  2. I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. Imagine you had been an arb, what would you have written in reply?
    I agree with you, and had I not been a clerk during that whole fiasco I would have been much more vocal about it. T&S banning Fram was entirely out of process and should not have happened. The net result of that action is that the English Wikipedia no longer trusts the Trust & Safety department, and I'm quite concerned about what will happen the next time they feel they need to intervene at this level.
    This whole thing put Arbcom in a very tough spot, as process-wise it needed to be completely reversed, but there were enough concerns about Fram's administrative actions that leaving that part of the decision to the community was a reasonable outcome. I personally think that Remedy 2a or 2b would have been better choices than 2d, but I am not privy to whatever private evidence Arbcom had in its possession so it's hard for me to know if there was something there that really needed to be taken into account.
    Without knowing that, I'm not sure how exactly I would have replied to you, although I'm quite sure I would have agreed with you on the major points – that the desysop was out of process, and that there was no longer any chance at a fair trial. – bradv🍁 20:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda Arendt, I've amended the statement above to include 2a as an option, which is what I meant to include originally. Without knowing the private evidence, I can't form an opinion on whether 2a or 2b was preferable, but I believe either would have been better than 2d. – bradv🍁 22:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. The name of my friend LouisAlain came up on meta, I suspect as a problematic area. Same case, same thread: subheader LouisAlain. Do you see anything of the "enough concerns about Fram's administrative actions" quality there (because I don't)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I only see two or three articles created by LouisAlain that were deleted by Fram. Their involvement was reviewed at ANI, during which Fram explained their actions and took feedback from the other participants. I see nothing there that rises to the level of requiring intervention by Arbcom. – bradv🍁 21:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for supporting my view. Do you understand my doubts about the "broad" allegations of wrongdoings, and when you look closer you see nothing? - Did you read what the great SBHB wrote in a nutshell, about "broad impresiions"? - No need for more replies, just food for thought. Thank you for standing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I understand your concern. This is why a public evidence phase is so important, and why arbs should be wary of operating from "broad impressions" rather than specific evidence. This is precisely what made the Fram case so difficult, and why I hope it never gets repeated. – bradv🍁 22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Beeblebrox

  2. Thank you for serving as a clerk. As a former arb I'm well aware of how much the committee leans on you guys. On that point: As you probably recall, I was not overly happy with the way proposed decision talk pages have been being handled in some cases, in a manner that as far as I know is not done on any other type of page anywhere on Wikipedia, with enforced absolute conformity of section headings, and threaded discussion absolutely prohibited except for arbs and clerks. I realize your job as a clerk is to do as arbcom asks and this was not your personal decision, so my question is more in the realm of if you believe this si perhaps being overused, if it is really all that helpful, and if you feel it is perhaps a little classist as arbs and clerks are still perfectly free to engage in any manner they like while everyone else is restricted? As you may also recall I objected to the fact that this new procedure appears out of nowhere when the committee deems in necessary, and isn't recorded anywhere, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts ont hat aspect, speaking without your clerk hat on. Thanks for your replies. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your question. I understand and appreciate your concerns about sectioned discussions and uniformity in section headings. In many cases that was applied preemptively to prevent off-topic side discussions, but it often turned out to be unnecessary. However, when sectioned discussion is mandated by the arbs, I do believe the clerks should enforce it consistently.
    Sectioned discussion is most useful in situations where comments should only be addressed to the arbitrators, such as proposed decision pages where only the arbitrators can present proposals and vote on them. Going forward I would like to see the use of sectioned discussion limited to those pages where the conversation has clearly gone off the rails. At the very least, the evidence and workshop pages should remain open to threaded discussion. – bradv🍁 22:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Ritchie333

  2. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. May I ask you what motivated you to apply for a post at this time? You've only recently passed RfA, and while I can't really justify this with anything more than gut feeling, there does seem to be a little bit of hat collecting going on. Can you alleviate my concerns and convince me that I've got nothing to worry about? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As you know, I've been a clerk for about a year, and for a good chunk of that time I was the only active clerk. I saw several situations where the committee did not have the bandwidth to handle everything in the best possible way, several situations where the committee was nearly crippled by criticism and toxic attitudes, and an unprecedented crisis which nearly tore this community apart. During that time, we had 5 arbitrators resign, which now leaves us with 11 open spots. I am under no illusions that Arbcom is a fun time, or that being an arb is just another hat to collect and do nothing with. There are seriously challenging issues that need to be dealt with, and it takes a broad cross-section of the community to come together and do this well.
    As for me, I have always had an interest in helping out with dispute resolution, and I often find myself trying to find common ground between editors in contentious topic areas. I have devoted much of my free time in the past year to making the Arbcom processes work as smoothly as possible. And I have the free time this year to be able to help out.
    As I said in my nomination statement, I'll be happy to continue working as a clerk instead if that is what the community prefers. If 11 candidates show up that are more qualified than I am, I will consider it an honour to assist them in making this thing work. But I believe I have what it takes to do this job well, and I look forward to the opportunity to do so. – bradv🍁 23:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What is your opinion, if any, of off-wiki criticism sites? As an arbitrator, you'll probably expect to see your username turn up on an internet search in some strange places. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My name has already shown up many times in off-wiki criticism sites. They are best ignored. – bradv🍁 23:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Peacemaker67

  2. What do you think about the decision to accept Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort? In particular, considering the lack of prior dispute resolution attempts or attempt to use ANI to deal with the behavioural issues. Why or why not?
    I consider it quite important for the community to have opportunities to solve issues first, before they get referred to Arbcom. In this case, however, there were allegations of off-wiki harassment and sockpuppetry, which did require Arbcom to review private evidence. It wouldn't have made sense for the committee to reject just part of the case request, and the preliminary statements were nearly unanimous in requesting the committee to take the case.
    I am aware that this case caused a bit of controversy among the MILHIST participants, which I won't pretend to fully understand. At some point it may be worth reviewing how this case has played out within the topic area, and if any of the decisions require revisiting. – bradv🍁 00:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the banning was a walk-up start and should have been handled at ANI, but the rest has had little effect on either side of what was basically a content dispute. It was a huge time sink and the benefits were minimal because it was almost entirely about content, not conduct, and ArbCom isn't here to look at content. It has also been weaponised against good-faith editors, with a recent attempt to re-litigate it. I hope ArbCom will steer clear of these sorts of cases in the future, unless behavioural problems have proved intractable and unable to be dealt with at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Nosebagbear

  2. Once the new ARBCOM is in we'll be seeing an "RfC [with] focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future.". Personally, what particular questions/aspects would you want to see discussed? Any particular concerns?
    The main questions that we need to wrestle with are 1) how Arbcom should handle cases which involve private evidence, and 2) how we should handle situations where people don't want to file public cases for fear of retaliation. I don't believe there are easy answers to either of these, but I look forward to the discussion. These are real issues that involve real people, and too often productive editors just leave rather than sort out their differences. I hope there's a way to fix that. – bradv🍁 00:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Do you think Discretionary Sanctions are overly/underly authorised (and utilised, which is distinct)? How would you want to change it if you became an Arb?
    By and large I think the DS system works, although it could always use review and improvement, which I wish would happen more often. I have a few half-baked ideas:
    β€’ Many older topics may no longer require DS, and these should be lifted. I think any topic area that has had no logged actions with the past year should be reviewed as a matter of course, and if the disruption has ended they can be restored to regular editing rules.
    β€’ We have several DS topic areas that are divided by geography rather than the style of dispute. For instance, what would it look like to authorize DS on "nationalism and antisemitism", and merge several different disputes into that? Would that more closely align the problematic areas with the extra enforcement?
    I'm sure other people have ideas on how we could streamline the system, and I'd love to hear them. At some point we should have a conversation about this, either in the context of a case or via an RfC. – bradv🍁 01:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Rschen7754

  2. During WP:FRAM, you stepped back from the project. Would you have done the same if you were an arbitrator during that time, or what other steps would you have taken? --Rschen7754 05:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was incredibly frustrated throughout that incident. The WMF had intervened to ban an admin, with complete disregard for the regular community processes, without any public evidence, and without any accountability or appeal process. They released statements that said nothing at all, ignored thousands of questions from the community, and refused to provide any reasonable explanation for their action. The day that the story about what they had done finally hit the news, the executive director of the WMF posted a tweet that revealed both her ignorance of the issue and her contempt for the journalist who reported on the incident. At that point I had had enough. I felt powerless to say or do anything that would help, the community was tearing itself apart trying to make sense of this, and in my mind our grand experiment had turned from a volunteer project with a plan to document the sum of all human knowledge into a big corporation which had finally figured out how to get people to do stuff for free. If this was the way things were going to be, I wasn't sure I wanted to be part of it.
    I wasn't the only one. Following a wave of resignations things started to turn around. Katherine apologized for her tweet and started to take interest in understanding what had happened and how the community was reacting. The board got involved, and eventually issued a statement allowing the ban to be reviewed by Arbcom, at which point I felt hopeful enough to undo my retirement and get back to work.
    I am not entirely sure how I would have reacted if I were an arbitrator at the time. I know that the arbs were as frustrated as I was, but even when I posted that notice I was hoping none of them would quit as they were much better positioned to speak truth to power. I like to think that as an arb I would have remained more hopeful and outspoken. At any rate, I really hope this never gets repeated, and I will do everything in my power to prevent something like this from happening again. – bradv🍁 19:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carrite

  2. What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
    This may not be quite the answer you're looking for, but the biggest problem with Arbcom is that it is run by humans, trying to fix issues between other humans, with lots of humans watching. There are complicated interpersonal dynamics, and none of the participants are infallible. Arbitrators occasionally make mistakes, they are criticized for making mistakes, and then they fail to act for fear of making a mistake, even when inaction is the biggest mistake of all.
    This is obviously an inherent issue, although the impact of this can be mitigated. We can choose arbitrators with a track record of not backing down from doing what is right, even when it is unpopular at the time. We can choose arbitrators who are willing to graciously accept feedback and acknowledge when they have made a mistake. And we can encourage them and treat them with civility throughout the year, providing thoughtful criticism when they err, and thanking them when they get things right.
    I believe that those things which we have in common as Wikipedians are far more important than the things that divide us, even in the toughest disputes. I hope that we can continue to remind ourselves of that, as that will make the dispute resolution process, including Arbcom, more effective and less painful. – bradv🍁 20:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Carrite (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Newslinger

  2. When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?
    Paid editing is a very serious issue which threatens to undermine V, NPOV, and the very nature of this encyclopedia as a volunteer project. But the rules at play are quite simple β€” paid editors must disclose their connections so their contributions can be checked, and if they fail to do so they are blocked.
    Discretionary sanctions is useful in situations where consensus is difficult to determine or obtain, and where administrators need extra tools to be able to limit disruptive behaviour. Unless the number of paid editors rises to the level of disrupting consensus at noticeboards and RfCs, I don't see how DS would be able to help. And in that case I would expect a heavily tailored system would be more appropriate to contain the issue, which should be developed by a broad consultation with the entire community rather than Arbcom alone. – bradv🍁 21:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?
    Two-factor authentication is a very useful security measure, and the community should continue to encourage users with advanced levels of trust to make use of it. However, Arbcom cannot mandate its use, as 2FA is not a reasonable solution for everyone, its implementation is not perfect, and Arbcom lacks the technical ability to determine who uses it and who doesn't. The announcement earlier this year took the wrong tone, even if the underlying motion was made with the best of intentions. – bradv🍁 21:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Cassianto

  2. Last year, I was the named party in the ham-fisted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions, that was brought about as a result of a biased committee not being impartial. The case should've been entitled Infobox 3, but the committee considered it to be too difficult to deal with the infobox problem and instead, made the case exclusively about me - suffice to say, the problem with infobox discussions still exist. I wondered whether, in future cases, not exclusive to IB discussions, you would consider it more important to deal with the cause rather than just the symptom?
    I don't think it's terribly helpful to just tell everyone to be nice, without making an investigation into the underlying issues and providing a framework for resolving the dispute. However, I do think the infobox probation remedy was an interesting one, and at some point I'd be interested in exploring whether or not it's working. – bradv🍁 21:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Leaky caldron

  2. There have been occasional, some might say frequent instances, of a perceived bias in the way that prolific content creators are treated compared to members of the community who support the en-WP in other ways. Is this something you recognise? When these contributors end up at AC - how should they be treated?
    The attempt to divide the community into "content creators" and other editors ("content supporters?") is a false dichotomy. The line that should be drawn is between those that are working to improve the encyclopedia and those that are working to sabotage it. The former should be encouraged, respected, and appreciated. The latter should be removed from the community.
    The reality is that everyone gets treated based on the net value of their contributions. We do not judge people solely by their worst moments, but neither do we judge them only by their best work. Some of the toughest decisions that Arbcom has had to make involved trying to get people who are at odds with each other to remain productive without losing them as editors. Sometimes this unfortunately involves limiting the manner in which they can interact with other editors or with a topic area. For good-faith editors, particularly those who have demonstrated considerable value to the project, these types of solutions are always preferable to a ban. – bradv🍁 22:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. You have assiduously avoided the specific questions I asked. You are painting a picture of Utopia. Living in the real world, do you seriously, SERIOUSLY, believe what you have written? - ""The reality is that everyone gets treated based on the net value of their contributions""?
    You're right, that is a bit utopian, but I am trying to paint a picture of how I think things ought to be. The vast majority of our content is created by people who never come anywhere near Arbcom. When they do, it is usually for things other than their actual content creation activities, and then Arbcom needs to address the negative part of the contributions while doing everything possible to preserve the positive. Prolific content creators shouldn't get a free pass at being abusive toward other editors, but just banning them without trying to separate the good activities from the bad does the project a disservice. Does that answer your question a bit better? – bradv🍁 14:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Joe Roe

  2. Criticism of arbitration decisions is inevitable. This criticism is often expressed in strong and personal terms. As an arbitrator, how will you respond to criticism, either of you personally or the committee as a whole? Do you think it will it affect your ability to remain objective?
    I like to think I have pretty thick skin, and personal attacks don't usually get me too upset. Being open to criticism and feedback is of paramount importance for the arbitrators, both individually and as a committee, and I fully expect to have to figure out how to take the salient points on board while disregarding the comments that are simply designed to be hurtful. I know that the criticism that arbitrators often face can be more intense than anything I've received thus far, but I believe I'm mature enough and experienced enough to deal with it. – bradv🍁 00:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WereSpielChequers

  2. Are there any circumstances where you would think it acceptable to give an editor a fixed term block without telling them why or what you expect them to desist from when they return? (Yes, this is a Fram related question).
    No, I can't imagine a situation in which that would be the right thing to do. If someone is given a path to return to the project after a period of time, they need to be given guidance on how to return productively, and that would include evidence on what they did wrong in the first place. – bradv🍁 14:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer. Ο’ereSpielChequers 17:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect

  2. Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?
    If we want arbitrators to remain well connected to the editing community we need to have a sensible standard for recusal. For me, that standard is to recuse from anything where I have a strong opinion, or where I could reasonably be expected to have a strong opinion. I've already had to follow this as a clerk, which is why I formally recused from Canadian politics, and in several other situations left the work to other clerks. – bradv🍁 16:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ought the persons named in a case be given sufficient time to answer charges made by others, rather than have each be given the same time limits?
    The point of time limits is to encourage a case to move along rather than continue indefinitely. As this is a volunteer project I would advocate a low bar for granting extensions, particularly when more time is needed to prepare a defense, provided the participants aren't drawing things out unnecessarily. – bradv🍁 16:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. When an arbitrator proffers specific evidence on their own, ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence" as though it were timely presented, with the same time allowed for such a response?
    Yes, and this is why I think arbitrators should be more involved during the evidence phase of a case. If evidence is being presented by the arbitrators at any point during the case (which really shouldn't be happening), the accused ought to be given a suitable opportunity to respond. – bradv🍁 16:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Caker18

  2. Can you provide an example of you mediating a conflict where both parties were mutually hostile?
    Any direct answer I give to this question has the potential to reopen an old wound or upset a stable situation. My talk page archives contain references to a number of disputes I helped to solve, including third opinions, requested move discussions, as well as numerous direct conversations with new editors with their typical struggles. I've also had to engage with a number of participants in Arbcom cases during my tenure as clerk – some of which were in private due to topic bans or ibans, but several are mentioned in my talk page history or on case talk pages. If you want more information about a particular situation I was involved in, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer. – bradv🍁 23:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SQL

  2. Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?
    This is tough to answer as I don't want to name specific names of people who are unblocked, so as not to embarrass them or draw unnecessary scrutiny after the fact. There was a recent incident where I took a 3RR report by an experienced editor at face value, but then later realized that the edits from the new editor were actually correct, and the experienced editor was the one at fault. So the experienced editor ended up blocked for edit warring, and the new editor's block was lifted early. Separate from that incident, there are a few unblock requests I have reviewed recently: Dino245 had a slew of obvious socks that he wasn't admitting to, Alfonso Calabarzon was a frivolous unblock request from an LTA who was making the same request across multiple accounts. I have also had a number of unblock discussions on IRC. Most of these end up declined (as they're usually the same people with different names), but for one or two I have lifted talk page protection so they could properly file an unblock request onwiki.
    I've generally avoided AN and ANI during my time as clerk so that I don't end up prejudiced with respect to incoming cases, but I think the few comments that I have made on those pages also demonstrate a knowledge of how the system is supposed to work. Again, I'd rather not bring up specifics as I don't want to reopen any wounds, but if you have any questions or concerns about my involvement with respect to any ban or block discussion on those pages, or anywhere, please ask and I'll do my best to answer.
    I know that reviewing bans and blocks is a big part of Arbcom's work, but there is also a pool of functionaries who can be drawn on for their experience as well, and I intend to work closely with them if elected. – bradv🍁 05:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SN54129

  2. What qualities would your three-month experience at adminship bring to the committee? (Specifically, adminship rather than clerkship.)
    Becoming an admin really didn't change much for me. I'm still interested in the same things, and generally do the same work, except now instead of asking other people to do things for me I get to assist others with their requests. So since my RfA I've been helping out at RFPP, AIV, and ANEW. The last in particular has been interesting, because mediating 3RR reports isn't something I had ever done before, and responding to edit warring is an important part of clearing the way for content to be written in a collaborative manner.
    But the real reason I'm volunteering for Arbcom isn't on the strength of my track record as an admin – it's because there I recognize a need for diversity on the committee, particularly in terms of choosing a broad cross-section of experience and interests in order to get some fresh faces and fresh ideas. – bradv🍁 15:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. How would you contextualise Peacemaker67's question on the 2018 GWE arbitration case with the more recent suggestion by one sitting arbitrator, who advised Peacemaker...Be careful that MILHIST doesn't become a place where that groupthink crowds out those who genuinely disagree, and another that MILHIST was counsel[ed]...to bear in mind that it does risk becoming a walled garden?
    From what I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, there was a significant disagreement in how to portray the accomplishments of decorated Nazi soldiers. Post-war English-language sources, including many of the early memoirs, are accused of emphasizing their achievements, but more recent German and English sources downplay the accomplishments of these soldiers in favour of contextualizing them as war criminals. To those preferring the more critical sources, the accomplishments are treated as POV trivia that should be removed, while other participants objected that they were removing cited content and weakening the articles.
    This is a deeply sensitive dispute, but it is a content issue, and not for Arbcom to decide. The case didn't focus directly on this disagreement, instead focusing on the behavioural issues at play in the dispute – incivility, tendentious editing, personal attacks, and sockpuppetry. In the results of the case, Arbcom also made the point that WikiProjects do not have editorial control over articles, but instead exist to "maintain the internal structure and process of the project". (From what I understand most of the MILHIST coordinators are on one side of this dispute.)
    After this case concluded, several of the MILHIST coordinators expressed concerns about the findings and remedies of the case. This is of course concerning, as it is evidence of a disagreement between Arbcom and MILHIST, and perhaps of a disagreement between one of those groups and the broader community. Either Arbcom has erred in their findings, or Arbcom got it right and MILHIST is at odds with consensus. That is the context of this warning to avoid groupthink and becoming a walled garden. Consensus can only be achieved by discussion and lots of input from the community, and if this has continued to be an issue even after the recent ARCA, it's a sign that further conversation still needs to happen. – bradv🍁 22:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Praxidicae

  2. What are your thoughts about functionaries and other advanced permission holders discussing Wikipedia and other Wikimedians (in otherwise good standing) with WMF banned editors, specifically those who have a history of doxing and harassment?
    I would ask why they're discussing editors outside of Wikipedia itself. Is it specifically to avoid policies like OUTING and HA? Is it because they want to associate with people who are no longer allowed to edit? Or is there some other reason?
    Obviously Arbcom does not have the power to police the internet, nor should it try. There are plenty of sites that discuss Wikipedia's content or policies without providing an avenue for banned editors to attempt to ruin people's lives. But off-wiki criticism sites that focus on Wikipedians are a serious issue, and people in positions of trust would be wise not to participate in them.
    The other part of this is that banned users need to be given a clean break from Wikipedia. Providing a community for them to continue to talk about their disagreements do not help them either, and can often just be enabling their feelings of bitterness and resentment. As I said above, these sites are best ignored, for the sake of all involved. – bradv🍁 15:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Banedon

  2. Were there any votes in the last few years which you would have voted against what turned out to be the majority decision? If so, which, and why?
    I'll start out by answering the ones below and then if I think of any others I'll add them here. I will say that I haven't been in the habit of second-guessing Arbcom decisions, as it's important for a clerk to make every effort to remain impartial. – bradv🍁 04:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If the answer to the above is no, how would you have voted on certain remedies that split the current committee? Feel free to pick your own remedies; otherwise you can also choose from these: [1], [2], [3]. (Feel free to answer this question as well even if the answer to the above is "yes", although it likely won't be necessary.)
    Fram: As I mentioned in my reply to Gerda Arendt, I don't like the motion that passed here as it took over the T&S decision to desysop without an actual finding of wrongdoing based on public evidence. I would have supported remedy 2a, unless there was strong evidence of misconduct in the private evidence that meant I couldn't in good conscience support that, in which case I would have declined to act and referred the matter to the community by means of remedy 2b. Either way I don't think 2d was the correct outcome, and I would have voted against it.
    Rama: I agree with this action. Rama had restored an article despite several deletion discussions, unabashedly circumventing the consensus process. As desysopping is the only Arbcom remedy that can be appealed to the community, this seems like a fairly easy decision, and from what I remember of that case it was quite uncontroversial.
    GWE: This one is a bit more confusing. From the diffs presented in the findings of fact in that case, Auntieruth55 was using their influence to help solve disputes rather than exacerbate them. Perhaps I'm missing something that wasn't properly shown in the findings of fact, but this doesn't look like a very well-thought-out remedy. For one, I don't really see the purpose of "reminding" someone of something that's already been mentioned in the principles section. – bradv🍁 04:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There's a case request today. [4] Would you accept it?
    Yes, I would vote to accept. It's clear that this is a long-standing dispute which has been a source of tension for months now. There have been many ANI threads, several RfCs, and there are accusations of incivility and gaming the system that the community has been unable to address. The most recent ANI thread closed with a consensus to refer this to Arbcom, so a case about portals seems quite necessary at this point. – bradv🍁 23:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WBG

  2. Over this page, all of the arbitrators (sans PMC, who responded a single time) refused to engage a multitude of queries and concerns from multiple longstanding members of the community, despite the case being entirely situated on public evidence.
    Do you feel that the displayed behavior abides by general community expectations of arbitrator conduct? Some have since stated that the concurrently running FRAMGATE meant that they had to be less devoted to this case; in such a situation, how would you have tackled this case (if anything different, at all)?
    I don't think anyone is happy with how that case progressed. It was drawn out for far too long, the committee was distracted by the Fram case, and of the three initial drafting arbs two went inactive and the third resigned, leaving another arb to take over at the proposed decision stage. During this time the clerks responded to many emails from parties in the case, particularly related to enforcing the temporary injunction, and it was very clear from the lengthy explanations we received that the issue was complex, ongoing, and not easily solved.
    I think what this case needed was for one of the arbs to take a day or two and go through every piece of evidence, and every comment, and respond to the concerns expressed on the PD talk page. I'm sure that some of them did the first part of that, as the final decision appears to have been effective, but the communication was certainly lacking. I don't think I would have voted to close the case until that final step had been accomplished. – bradv🍁 16:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Your fellow candidate, Gadfium writes:- Arbs should be highly responsive to community concerns on the talk pages of cases and that anyone who expresses an honest and constructive opinion should be taken seriously. Do you agree with the premises of these statements?
    Yes, I do. I've always tried to be very responsive to comments on arbitration pages, but I only comment on things that clerks can help with. I have noticed that when the arbitrators do not respond to criticism or questions, the situation tends to deteriorate, sometimes quite rapidly. This has led to some pretty toxic comments at times, which usually end up putting the clerks in a tough spot. – bradv🍁 16:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. That you were unable to let mere hyperbolic criticism of an institutional body stay, how do you convince me that you will have the ability to digest sharp personal criticism directed at you -- an inevitable occurrence, shall you get elected?
    Where and how do you draw the line between stifling dissent and countering abuse?
    What did you learn (if anything, at all) from the whole episode, when the clerk-actions induced a Streisand with 5 other editors, choosing to re-insert the redacted passage in entirety or with mild copy-edits?
    Per my answer above, this was one of the situations where the clerks were put in a tough spot. As I've explained in some of my other answers, I don't agree with the decision that Arbcom took here, but it was not my place to publicly disagree. I and the other clerks were tasked with enforcing decorum on arbitration pages, which included removing personal attacks aimed at individual arbitrators or at the committee as a whole. In this case one of the other clerks had deemed this a personal attack and removed it, and several other editors took it upon themselves to repost it. There is a very thin line between constructive and unconstructive feedback, but reverting clerk actions on arbitration pages is completely out of line and removing the reposted comments was the right call. The alternatives included blocking the participants or protecting the talk page, neither of which were steps I was willing to take.
    Your question is about how I will handle criticism, but the example you give is how I handled criticism of the arbitrators. I think these are two different situations – I am much more likely to defend others based on the tone or language used, whereas for criticism directed at me I try to take the salient points on board while letting others police the civility issues. I have pretty thick skin, and recognize that often people say things in the heat of the moment, but there's usually good reason why they're upset. Even in the case of blatant personal attacks it's important to try to understand where they're coming from. – bradv🍁 16:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 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.
    I think this comment fits your criteria. I don't know how unpopular it will ultimately prove to be, but at the time it definitely deviated from the consensus on the page. – bradv🍁 16:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Nearly every case, that are being brought before the committee, involves skirting of the civility policy in some way or the other, that may not be always bright-line violations on a per se basis. The only mechanisms, that current arbitrators are using to combat with the issue, are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. Have you thought/devised of any new but more optimal way to solve this issue?
    As an aside, this question had me looking up numbers on which cases involved civility issues. Of the 8 cases concluded so far this year, 4 involved civility issues. They all included some combination of civility issues and tool abuse.
    The final decisions of most arbitration cases start with a lecture about how Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. This because when Arbcom gets involved it's a sign that that collaborative process has failed in some way. There have been a few creative remedies passed over the years, from establishing the terms of an RfC to hitting people on the head with sticks, but bans have remained the most common tool used – together with discretionary sanctions, which delegate this responsibility to administrators.
    I'm not sure what other mechanism could or should be used. I don't think we should be going back to hitting people with sticks, but being slightly more creative would be a good thing. I am very interested in what sort of ideas come out of the forthcoming RfC on harassment and incivility, as I'm sure some of the ideas there will encourage Arbcom to be a little more adventurous on future cases. I look forward to further dialogue on this, but I don't have any brilliant ideas to share at the moment. – bradv🍁 19:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, in advance, for your answers. ∯WBGconverse 09:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Piotrus

  2. Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [5]. in which I concldued that "A practical recommendation for Wikipedia in particular, and for other communities with collegiate courts in general, is that when electing members to their dispute resolution bodies, those communities would do well to pay attention to how much time the prospective future judges can devote to this volunteering task." In other words, may Arbitrators become inactive due to real world reasons (family, job) and this is not an exception but a rule, repeated time and again throughout ArbCom history. Do you think there is any practical way to deal with this, such as, for example, asking Arbitrators to obligatorily describe, in their election process, how they plan to ensure they have sufficient free time to devote to this activity?
    That sounds really interesting, and I wish I had access to read that study. Your conclusion certainly makes sense to me, that in order to do the job justice one has to have the time to delve into the deep once in a while to truly understand an issue, and be regularly available to respond to quick requests or urgent situations. In a way this is very similar to the clerk work that I have done for the past year. Other than a few short vacations and work trips, I have been on Wikipedia nearly every day, keeping an eye on clerk emails, talk pages, or developments in arbitration cases. I see no reason I couldn't continue that level of activity while on the committee, and even increase it at times as the need arises.
    That's my personal situation, but as to the second part of your question, I don't think there's any way to ensure candidates have enough free time other than to observe their editing history or ask them this question. – bradv🍁 05:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the study was open access, but I guess it is not. You can find a copy at Library Genesis if not at my academia.edu. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus and Bradv, I tried searching Microsoft Academic as often that service does a really good job at colocating multiple copies of scholarly journal articles, including those in obscure open access repositories. To Piotrus, you might want to consider, for future studies, insisting on retaining the right to deposit your journal article in an open access repository. Nevertheless, I found a an unauthorized copy at Sci-Hub (when searching for the DOI).--Doug Mehus TΒ·C 17:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gadfium

  2. In User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates, she says "Know what you'll do if you don't win a seat. This is an important test. Will you continue participating in the building of the encyclopedia? In what areas do you plan on working? Some people have considerable difficulty resuming normal editing life after an unsuccessful run." What will you do if you're not elected?
    As I said in my nomination statement, I will be happy to continue working as a clerk if the new committee will have me. One of the things I plan to do is to continue my attempt to automate ArbCom. There will also be some work to do with the upcoming RfC on harassment, and a new year always brings a few new requests and motions. Apart from that, I will continue my efforts at AfC and NPP, as well as the usual administrator backlogs. I have some plans to write a few new biographies as well, which I don't do nearly as often as I would like. Of course if I'm elected I hope to do all these things as well, but they might take slightly longer. – bradv🍁 03:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Doug Mehus

  2. My interactions with Brad have been very positive, and I like what I've seen thus far from, particularly his being guided by our policiesβ€”both explicitly and implicitlyβ€”especially our policies on copyright violations and WP:BLP, and his willingness to help new editors and always assume faith. I've seen some experienced editors and, indeed, administrators, become bitey sometimes. Not so with Brad; in contrast, he is both neutral and objective. I don't really have any questions, so perhaps I'll lob this softball question: can you outline the transition plan find another ArbCom Clerk as competent, independent, and dutiful as yourself? And, procedurally, where do I go to vote?
    Thank you for the kind words. I'm not entirely sure how to answer your question, but the list of clerks is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks, and the clerk team is often looking for new people to help out. We look for people who have excellent knowledge of policy and community conventions, an attention to detail, and a track record of dispute resolution. Regarding voting, the polls open in two days, and I believe there will be a message on your talk page with instructions. Cheers. – bradv🍁 21:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Volunteer Marek

  2. Apologies for late question. There has always been a lot of complaints about lack of communication and transparency with regards to the committee. While this issue is not new, it has never really been adequately addressed, aside from the ever presented hackneyed promises during election time. The complaints have been particularly vociferous recently. Please see this proposal and express your opinion on it. Would you support something like it (even if not exactly in this form) when on ArbCom?
    Thank you for your question. I share your concern about the lack of communication and transparency between the committee and the community, and this is definitely something that can be improved. I and the other clerks regularly send requests to the committee for action on things that have stalled, inform the committee of new requests that need to be dealt with, and ask them if matters can be closed. While there is certainly merit in clerks retaining that role, these requests are also not visible to the community, and there is definitely room for improvement.
    Regular reports about the activity level of the committee in broad terms seems to me like a necessary step, and I think I agree with most of your proposal. The major concern to me would be whether the reporting activity itself would hinder the throughput of the committee, or if it would spur them into action by noting inefficient activities and matters that have a poor response time. I suspect it would be a little bit of both, but the clerks could hopefully help to mitigate the extra workload of the reporting process. Either way, I would be willing to try it, and I will commit to raising your proposal with the rest of the committee if elected. – bradv🍁 16:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Whitebro

  2. What kind of clerk are you? Do you work as a court clerk in real life? What are the responsibilities of a Wikipedia clerk?
    Thanks for your question. I am a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, which means I help out with the administration of cases and requests – opening and closing cases, recording decisions, notifying parties, and keeping things tidy and orderly. The process of arbitration on Wikipedia is fairly bureaucratic, and having a group of clerks helps the arbitration process run more smoothly and fairly. I do not work as a clerk in real life; this is purely an onwiki volunteer role. – bradv🍁 02:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Grillofrances

  2. Which of the past/current ArbCom judges is the closest to your views how the ArbCom should work like? Why?
    I have to work with the current arbitrators right now, and will do so even closer if elected, so I'm not comfortable talking about which ones are my favourites. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to pass on this question. – bradv🍁 05:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Which of the past/current ArbCom judges were the worst in your opinion? Why?
    Same answer as above – bradv🍁 05:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Which is the best written article in English wikipedia in your opinion?
    There are nearly 6,000 featured articles and over 30,000 good articles. I don't have a favourite, and I wouldn't even know how to begin to pick one. – bradv🍁 05:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Do you think English wikipedia has enough articles or there should much more of them or a large part of them should be deleted (I realize there should be new articles created in situations like a new MP or mayor is elected or there appears a new popular technology etc.)?
    There will always be new articles to write as long as things keep happening in the world and people do great things that deserve to be written down in an encyclopedia. And while I think there are a lot of articles that we don't need, I recognize that some things that I don't care about are very important to other people, and their contributions and perspectives are just as valuable as my own. – bradv🍁 05:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. What do you think about each article update be required to be reviewed by an admin in order to be published in English wikipedia?
    I think that would severely limit the amount of new content that could be written, as we barely have enough admins as it is. We have thousands of trusted users that review edits as they are made, and most of them do not need access to the administrator tools to do so. – bradv🍁 05:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. What do you think about obligatory revealing the real name (at least the given name and the first letter of the last name), gender, date of birth, photo, education (level and path) and profession of each of the ArbCom candidates?
    This has the possibility of opening arbitrators up to threats of real-life harassment. I am opposed to this idea. We are all volunteers, and this encyclopedia wouldn't be what it is if we required our editors to disclose their personal information. – bradv🍁 05:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. What do you think about required payment of let's say 100 USD when creating a new wikipedia account in order to decrease the number of people having multiple accounts? This money could be given back after performing 100 edits. Of course anonymous updates would be forbidden.
    This is certainly an interesting idea, but I don't think it would be very effective. While it may reduce the number of abusive sockpuppets, it probably wouldn't have any effect on paid editing. On the other hand, it would have a very real effect on new people joining Wikipedia and contributing for the first time. – bradv🍁 05:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. What is your view on Israel? Should the Jews control the entire Israel territory including all the Palestinian territory or excluding the Palestinian territory or should all this land be controlled by Arabs?
    I don't have a strong opinion on Israel/Palestine. I do have a strong commitment to neutral point of view, which I hope comes through clearly in my editing. – bradv🍁 05:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. What is the most serious threat to human existence in the nearest century in your opinion?
    War. Knowledge and education are the best defense against it, which is a big part of why I contribute to Wikipedia. – bradv🍁 05:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. In your opinion, what actions should we take to stop the climate change? Or maybe we should do nothing?
    I can't see what I would be able to do as an arbitrator to combat climate change. – bradv🍁 05:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. What's your religion? If you believe in God, how important is he for you? If you believe in God, do you believe literally in everything what's written in the Bible/ Quran or other religious book? If you're an atheist, which book is the best source of wisdom for you?
    I'm not comfortable with this question. – bradv🍁 05:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Which of the following sexual behaviors are normal in your opinion: sex before marriage, anal sex, oral sex, homosexuality, polygamy, zoophilia, necrophilia, incest, rape, pedophilia?
    I'm really not comfortable with this question. I will say however that human relationships should be based upon mutual respect. – bradv🍁 05:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Do you think any animals might be more intelligent than the humans?
    My puppy is pretty smart. I don't think he's ever helped write an encyclopedia though. – bradv🍁 05:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Robert McClenon

  2. Some of the most important decisions by arbitrators are whether to accept or decline cases. What principles will you follow on voting on whether to accept cases that may be within the scope of arbitration, as opposed to declining the cases and leaving them for the community?
    For cases involving administrator misconduct, I would have a low bar for acceptance. Arbcom is the only avenue available for desysopping someone for cause, and such decisions are appealable to the community in the form of a new RfA. For cases involving disputes between editors, there needs to be sufficient evidence that the dispute cannot be worked out using regular talk page discussion or other dispute resolution techniques, and there needs to be evidence that the dispute involves misconduct, and is not simply a content issue (which is not the jurisdiction of Arbcom). In most cases the preliminary statements by uninvolved editors provide good insight into whether the matter is ripe for arbitration, and I would read these statements carefully before casting my vote. – bradv🍁 17:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Do you think that the initial T&S action in banning Fram was a valid exercise of responsibility by Trust and Safety, a completely unjustified overreach by T&S, or something in between, such as an over-reaction by T&S to an existing weakness in the English Wikipedia's sanctions regime?
    As I stated in my answer to Rschen7754 above, I think this was an unjustified overreach by T&S. They based this decision on a perception that Arbcom was incapable of addressing certain issues, but rather than talking to Arbcom or the community with their concerns, they intervened directly. This has done far more harm than good. From their latest statement it appears that they have reconsidered this approach, although some of the damage still remains, and I still have concerns about how they will handle these kinds of complaints going forward. – bradv🍁 17:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In recent years the ArbCom has almost always been significantly late in issuing proposed decisions. The current PIA4 case is an example. Do you propose any action to reduce these delays, such as either shortening the delay between closing of the workshop and posting of the proposed decision, or providing a longer target date?
    I share your concern. I would like to see the arbitrators involved at the Evidence and Workshop phases, and not just wait until those phases conclude to start drafting the proposed decision. Ideally the drafting of the PD would take place on the Workshop page, while that phase is still open, with input from the parties and other interested editors. – bradv🍁 17:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

  2. What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?
    Undisclosed paid editing is forbidden by both policy and the terms of use. Arbcom has a role in enforcing this together with the other functionaries through the paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org OTRS queue. While the arbitration policy makes no mention of the terms of use, violations of it are generally a conduct issue and therefore would fall within Arbcom's remit the same as any other policy violations. Arbcom has in the past dealt with violations of the TOU such as paid editing and harassment in cases where the community was unable to solve it through ordinary discussion. Did you have a particular scenario or example in mind, or does this answer your question? – bradv🍁 00:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Candidates/Bradv/Questions&oldid=927666745"