Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#((ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=))

2. Is an editor's refusal or inability to follow the reliable source criteria a behavior issue within the purview of the Arbitration Committee? Why or why not?

   The answer really depends on the case in question. An editor inserting the same unreliable sources into different articles may be problematic, but it doesn't rise to the level where the committee needs to step in.

4. When an editor is accused of misconduct stemming from subtle behavior issues (i.e., POV pushing instead of e.g. edit warring) surrounding a content dispute, is it ever possible to evaluate their conduct without at least attempting to understand and verify the facts and sources of the underlying content dispute? Why or why not?

   It's possible, but I would be hesitant for the committee to weigh in on content disputes.

6. How would you handle a group of experienced editors who came before you at arbitration if they had willfully and repeatedly removed some but not all of the conclusions of sources (which they admit are of the highest reliability) because they personally disagree with those particular conclusions, when they do not object to the other conclusions from those sources?

   I won't comment on hypothetical cases here.

8. If an editor, when asked to provide an example of what they consider to be a high quality source on a given subject, responds with a source which was sponsored by a commercial organization with a clear conflict of interest, would you expect other editors to refer to that example when other COI issues concerning that editor and the same subject matter arise? Why or why not?

   No. We comment on content, not the contributor.

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

2. What originally led you to join Wikipedia? What do you do on the site on a day-to-day basis?

   When I was studying in college I started to use Wikipedia as a resource. It was at that time that I began editing, first as an IP user. I liked that enough so I figured I would register an account and I've been active here since. Day-to-day, I mostly like to keep up with ongoing discussions, though I don't always weigh in. When I do have time to edit, I mostly look for suspicious edits on watch list. I also like to weigh in on move requests. I was highly active at ITN for a while after joining, but I've gotten away from that.

4. What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences?

   I have gained some experience in this area over the past several years since I joined. Most of it comes from disputes on article talk pages. I think I've learned to see both sides of an argument, even if I don't necessarily agree with one side.

6. Case management has been an issue in many elections, with some cases stalling for weeks with little reply, and others coming to a quickly-written proposed decision that received little support from other arbitrators due to concerns about it being one-sided. What is your familiarity with the arbitration process, and how do you believe cases should be handled? Do you plan to propose any reforms in this regard?

   I've never been involved in a case, though I have followed ones that interest me from time-to-time. One possible way to speed up the process may be to combine the workshop and evidence pages into one.

8. Several cases in past years have focused on the tension between so-called "subject experts" who know about the intricacies of the subject area and "general editors" who are familiar with the standards that are applied across Wikipedia. What are your thoughts about such issues?

   I think this is always going to be an issue when you have an encyclopedia anyone can edit. That doesn't mean I don't believe in the idea that any can edit, just that such disputes will happen. I see the dispute between specialists and average editors to be more of a concern for the community than the committee. Arbitration should be a last resort for addressing those issues.

10. In 2014, the English Wikipedia remains among the few projects (if not the only project) where the process for removal of adminship is not community-driven. What are your thoughts about how adminship is reviewed on this project, and do you think this should be changed, or are you happy with the status quo?

    A community process needs to be put in place. It's somewhat ridiculous that the community can ban any editor, but cannot take away the sysop bit. That sort of disproves the notion that adminship isn't a big deal, doesn't it?

12. Serving as a functionary (even more so as an arbitrator) often means dealing with unpleasant issues, including but not limited to helping those dealing with doxing and real-world harassment and communicating with WMF about legal issues. In addition to onwiki and offwiki harassment, functionaries have often had false accusations made against themselves, frequently in venues where they are unable to defend themselves or where the accusers are unwilling to listen to reason. What effects would both of these have on your ability to serve as an arbitrator?

    I doubt it would have much effect. I really don't have much to hide.

14. What is your familiarity with Wikimedia-wide policies, such as the CheckUser policy and the Oversight policy, as well as the Privacy policy? What is your opinion as to how Wikimedia (staff and volunteers) handles private information?

    In all honestly, those aren't areas I'm very familiar with.

16. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to provide lasting dispute resolution in difficult cases that the community has difficulty resolving. However, of course Wikimedia is a community-driven project. To that end, what are your views regarding what should be handled by the community, and what should be handled by arbitration?

    The committee should only decide disputes or take action when the community has failed to do so. The committee also, in my mind at least, should act as a venue of final appeal for editors facing sanctions such as bans.

Thank you. Rschen7754 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. Do you think we have a problem with civility on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Do you think civility can and should be enforced on Wikipedia as vigorously as the other pillars like NPOV are? Why or why not?

   Problems with civility, I feel, are exaggerated. That doesn't mean we don't have a problem with civility, but that it will appear to be a bigger problem because it is more difficult to address. It's hard to answer your second question in general terms, but it is a policy and should be enforced.

4. Wikipedia has a undeniable gender gap in terms of who contributes to Wikipedia and what topics are covered. Do you think this is a significant problem for Wikipedia? Why or why not? What, if anything, can and should the Committee do to address this?

   I think the ability to attract new editors, either male or female, is a problem. Just look at the field of candidates running for the committee this; I'm probably the "newest" and I've been here since 2011. Getting back on topic, I do feel the lack of women is an issue. It's not however, one the committee can address. It's a problem for the community and the Wikimedia Foundation to solve.

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Thanks for being ready to offer your service! Last year, I asked 3 questions, this year it's only one: imagine you are an arb, how would you comment in this case? Hint: you don't have to evaluate a whole case, just one request. My so far favourite comment has four words ;)

   First, I agree with the decision to take no action; common sense says fixing a malformed infobox isn't the same as adding one. Second, as that was an WP:AE request, I wouldn't have been involved in any ruling on the matter as an arbitrator.

I asked for comment, not ruling, you answered well, thank you especially for using the phrase "common sense" in the context, unusual and remarkable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?

   In my opinion, no arbitrator should presume anything about a case before it begins, particularly when it comes to sanctioning an editor. Whether or not that is the case currently is something I can't answer. And no, I could see cases arising with no sanctions against individual editors.

4. Do minor sanctions such as limited topic bans require specific findings that each editor named has violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines in that topic area? If an immediately prior WP:AN/I discussion did not show any support for a topic ban, should ArbCom impose one without specific findings of any violation of a policy or guideline?

   I wouldn't say a topic ban is a "minor" sanction because many editors only focus on one or two areas to begin with. Getting back to your question, yes the committee should find an editor violated a guideline/policy before taking action. As for the committee imposing sanctions after the community did not do so, there are instances where the community has shown itself incapable of reaching a consensus. That's where the committee should step in. There is a difference between the community rejecting a topic ban and not being able to come to a consensus on one.

6. Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?

   There are no such circumstances under which I would do say. If it could be proven an arbitrator did do so, I would question that person's ability to continue on the committee.

8. "Stare decisis" has not been the rule for ArbCom decisions. For general rulings and findings, is this position still valid, or ought people be able to rely on a consistent view of policies and guidelines from case to case?

   Precedent is important, both in the real world and here on Wikipedia. So yes, editors should expect consistency in rulings made by the committee. Complicating things, however, is the fact that different arbitrators may have different interpretations of similar situations.

10. Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?

    As I indicated in my statement, abritrators should consider the main goal of the project -- we're here to create an encyclopedia -- when deciding cases. That's the pillar I find most important.

12. Many cases directly or indirectly involve biographies. How much weight should the committee give to WP:BLP and related policies in weighing principles, findings and decisions?

    BLP and related policies, etc. are just one of the considerations to be taken into account.

14. How would you personally define a "faction" in terms of Wikipedia editors? Is the behaviour of "factions" intrinsically a problem, or are the current policies sufficient to prevent any faction from improperly controlling the tenor of a Wikipedia article? If the committee determines that a "faction" rather than an individual editor is at fault in a behaviour issue, how would you suggest handling such a finding?

    Faction might not be a word I'd be comfortable with using. A better term may be "cliques." It seems to be human nature for like minded individuals to group together, so I don't view them as a problem in general.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Arbitrators do not make policy. How would you handle sweeping remedies which amount to policy change, for example the one that puts all BLP pages and LP mentions under discretionary sanctions?

   I don't believe the committee should make policy. That's not the committee's role.

4. Arbitrators need a lot of time to do justice to a complex case, with request, evidence, workshop, talk pages, propose decisions, and talk pages all comprising maybe hundreds or thousands of diffs, and up to the equivalent of a short novel of text, not to mention email evidence and discussion, "the other Wiki" and background research. Do you have the time to conscientiously work on these sorts of case?

   I do believe so, with the caveat that only those who have been on the committee truly know how much time is involved. I generally check Wikipedia at least a couple times during business hours (though I don't edit much while at work). I'm free most weekends and evenings, giving me sufficient time.

6. Because of the workload of Arbitration cases, it has been suggested that they should, in general, be heard by 5 or 7 of the active arbitrators, possibly with one "spare". Would you support a solution like this?

   I'm open to the idea, with some conditions. First and foremost, the community as a whole would need to sign off on that idea before it were implemented. Second, while I suspect using smaller panels would reduce the length of cases, I would need more evidence to prove that. Third, there would need to be some mechanism in place where sanctioned parties, particularly those given stricter penalties, could appeal the decision to the committee as a whole.

8. Arbitrators need a lot of patience. I was very worried when one Arbitrator said on-wiki he had difficulty keeping his temper. Do you think you have the patience this role requires?

   I think I have enough patience. Patience is just one of many attributes arbitrators need to possess after all.

10. Arbitrators need to be impartial and be seen to be impartial. If you became an arbitrator would you announce your opinion of the outcome of a case, or of an involved party at the request stage? Do you think Arbitrators should have the power to add any party they like to a case?

    The answer to your first question is simple: I would not comment on a possible outcome or on a party at the request stage. To your second point, I feel the committee should have that ability as a whole; individual arbitrators shouldn't have that ability.

12. The Committee must also be seen to be impartial as a whole. If you were elected would you be willing to waive your right to bring cases for the duration of your office? If not why not?

    Yes. The appearance of bias can be just as important as bias itself.

14. As an Arbitrator you would have access to the Checkuser right. As well as the obvious responsibility of access to private information, the right brings the power (if you have the block bit) to make effectively non-overturnable blocks, by simply labelling them as "checkuser blocks". This is because a block can be based on private information not available to mere administrators. A significant number of checkusers have used this privilege without any private information being relevant. Do you consider this something that you would do or condone, and why?

    Given that I am currently not an admin, I would only use advanced permissions such as checkuser for committee related duties.

16. The purpose of the Committee is to resolve disruptive disputes which the community cannot. One ex-Arbitrator commented that "it is not about justice and fairness". Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment, to what extent and why?

    I can't really comment without knowing the full context of the quote. (I realize that sounds like a cop out, but context is important in my line of work.) I do, however, believe the committee should be fair to all parties in proceedings. That seems pretty basic.

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

2. How do you feel about the ArbCom's practice of deciding cases through private deliberation? Would you push for greater transparency, up to the point of holding all discussions on-wiki, so long as sensitive personal information is not revealed? Would you be prepared to make a personal pledge to make all of your own comments in public, unless sensitive personal information is involved? Everyking (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I actually referenced this when I ran in 2011. I stated then, and still believe, that all business should be conducted on Wikipedia, except under extraordinary circumstances such as when privacy concerns come into play. As I referenced then, I believe any emails or other offsite correspondence relative to a case or other proceeding should be made public following the case, provided personal information was removed before hand.

2. If you were assigning a letter grade to Arbcom for its work in 2014, what would that grade be? What was the committee's greatest success and their worst mistake?

   I can't really assign a grade, because I've only followed a handful of cases this year. Among the cases I did follow was American politics, which closed in July of this year. I found it problematic for several reasons. First the scope of the case was relatively vague, with no named parties and a rather broad area of dispute (editors active in the area of American politics, essentially). Second, only one editor was sanctioned and I believe there was sufficient evidence to justify sanctions against another editor involved in the case (I hope you understand that I won't identify that person here). Third, two-and-a-half months is too long for such a case to be open.

4. The Arbcom process is slow, generally running nearly 6 weeks from first case request to final decision. What can be done to speed up this process?

   As I indicated above, one thing I would strongly consider is merging the workshop and evidence pages. I'm not sure how effective it would be, but I feel it would be a good start.

6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?

   The main page. Wikipedia the sixth most popular website in the world, yet the main page looks like something from 2004.

Thank you for your answers. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Hi, I'm Dave, one of the outgoing arbitrators. I can tell you now that being an arbitrator is tough - you become a target. Comments you make will be taken out of context, your motives and abilities will be insulted, you may be threatened or harassed. Have you thought much about the "dark side" of being an arbitrator? How have you prepared for this?

   Personally, I feel like I'm ready to handle this. I cover politics for a living, so to some extent I'm used to dealing with such mudslinging.

Thanks for answering, I wish you the best of luck. Worm^TT(talk) 09:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. What is your opinion of User:Tryptofish/Draft B for ArbCom, in terms of transparency, privacy, and whether it should become part of ArbCom procedures? Thanks!

   As I've indicated above (and when I previously ran) I would like to see all emails relative to cases being made public (with private information redacted), so the community can get a better ideaY of what goes on behind closed doors. Your proposal is a good start, but I'm not sure it goes far enough in that regard.

2. Please take a look at a set of questions I wrote four years ago, based on my first term as an arbitrator. Please pick and answer one or more questions from that list. Provide as much reasoning as needed to allow the electorate to judge how you would respond to these and similar situations you will probably encounter if elected.

2. Answer this question in only three words. Why do you want to be in the Arbitration Committee?

   Change is good.

2. Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee?

   Currently not involved. This probably wouldn't change going forward, but only time will tell.

4. One of the Arbcom candidates is standing on a pro-pie policy. Whilst you may find that to be a flippant approach, many editors do appreciate pie. What is your favourite kind of pie?

   Apple. I'm sort of a pie traditionalist in that regard.

2. I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of dispute?

   I'm neither of those.