Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from Rschen7754

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

  2. What originally led you to join Wikipedia? What do you do on the site on a day-to-day basis?
    Err been a long time. It mostly seemed to be a really interesting idea. These days I mostly add photos from various trips (most recently the Bovington tank museum, see if there are any recent PLOS ONE papers that could benefit wikipedia and work on a few long term projects
  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?
    About a decades worth of dealing with some controversial areas. What have I learned? Its talk talk and talk some more but only as long as the other editors are prepared to do so.
  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?
    The cause ultimately boils down to arbcom members having finite time so I don't think any attempted reforms are likely to have an effect
  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?
    Historically encyclopedias weren't written by subject experts (regardless of what the salesmen might tell you). That only appeared in the 1960s when postdocs become more common and cheaper. In most cases subject experts and general wikipedians get along fine. When they don't it has to be dealt with on a case by case basis and I don't see any way to establish general principles.
  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?
    Arbcom have proven pretty ready to de-admin in recent years so I don't see any reason to change things for the time being.
  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?
    Baring actions by the UK government none.
  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?
    I'm aware of the policies. As to the handling of information I'd say mostly ok although I'm concerned about the effectiveness of the ombudsman and a trend towards the WMF collecting and keeping an increasing amount of information (I tend towards the position that the best way to handle information with potential privacy issues is not to collect it in the first place).
  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?
    If something can be handled short of arbcom it should be.

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

Questions from EllenCT

  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?
    It is if it can't be handled through other means.
  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?
    Its entirely possible. Why? Well its pretty obvious arbcom case space is large enough that anything not actually prevented by the laws of physics is possible.
  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?
    Entirely depends on the wider facts of the case. I will point out that as a follower of retraction Watch among other blogs I'm well aware that even papers published in the best journals vary rather in quality.
  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?
    wikipedia editors show a broad range of behaviors. Some would some wouldn't. Someone making a COI case might incude it and I certainly would have no objection to them doing so as long as it was done in a measured manner. But let me guess you are talking about Neonicotinoids aren't you?

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda Arendt

  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 ;)
    We both have extensive involvement with wikimedia UK. WMUK has come under a fair degree of criticism both deserved and undeserved and I imagine if I failed to recluse in such a case it would complicate things further
  4. You mean Andy and you? (Not you and me?) Try to imagine the request was about a different editor whose name you had never heard before which might be a good recipe for fair treatment anyway.

Question from Kurtis

  1. I'm concerned with the fact that you have not disclosed any past controversies in your candidate statement — specifically the situation in 2007 that resulted in your desysopping for wheel-warring and a history of tool misuse. I know it was eight years ago, and you subsequently regained the tools in 2009 (I supported your RfA), but I was still hoping that you'd at least be more open about your past editing history. Would you be willing to offer an explanation for the lack of transparency? Kurtis (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a 400 word limit on candidate statements and I was pretty sure someone would bring it up in the questions where any particular element can be covered in more detail.

Questions from Collect

  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?
    Given the time and effort cases take its would be fairly unreasonable for arbcom to open one if its members didn't think some kind of action was needed. That said its not impossible that as further facts come to light that it turns out that action is not needed.
  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?
    In principle no however that kind of thing should generally be avoided.
  6. Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?
    Workshop pages can break down into unhelpful slanging matches on occasion. In such cases it's not entirely unreasonable to largely stick to the evidence page
  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?
    Depends on the time period. Generally arbcom should look to follow precedent over the short term but over longer periods (5 years say) the project is still changing enough that precedent should not be binding
  10. Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?
    In practice most things that make it to arbcom tend to relate to finer grained areas than that very general essay
  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?
    Their mass under one standard gravity? Its entirely going to depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. In a case where someone is behaving poorly in their interactions with their fellow editors it is unlikely to be significant. On the other hand if an editor is engaging in soapbox behaviors on a biography then its going to be central to the case
  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?
    A group of editors in common alignment. Is it intrinsically a problem? No. For example I'd tend to regard the free software absolutists as a faction and while some people might be upset over the MP4 decision I'm happy with the result. The shear size of wikipedia means that there are going to be articles that can be controlled by factions or even single editors. For example if someone wants to control the Tastiera shqip article the reality is it is likely to be a while before anyone notices. Generaly such cases would be handled by applying sactions to the problem articles rather than the editors per se.

Thank you Collect (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gamaliel

  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?
    For the most part we don't have a civility problem. There are localised areas which do but this should not be overly sensationalised. In practice it already has much in common with NPOV issues. A few high profile problems and rather more lower profile cases that fall through the cracks.
  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?
    In terms of what topics are covered (and how well they are covered) certainly. You just need to look at our articles on jewelry which despite being items of cultural significance for 75K years generally aren't very good. We also inherit a lot of issues from the sources we work from. For example at one point during the English civil war the defense of Portsmouth appears to be been lead by a woman but beyond being the wife of Richard Norton of Southwick Park none of the standard sources say much about her. In terms of who contributes increasing the editor recruiting pool is always a plus. However I'm not sure that arbcom can do much to help in this area.

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Everyking

I tend towards the position that the primary priority should be getting the correct result quickly. If that means things are largely hashed out in private so be it.©Geni (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nature of the communication—public or private—influences the correctness of the result. I believe that transparency typically yields better and more responsible outcomes. If that is true, shouldn't the nature of the communication be a priority? Everyking (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rich Farmbrough

  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?
    Oppose them.
  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?
    yes.
  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?
    The problem you would hit is that it ups the problem of arbcom members becoming inactive during the case.
  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?
    yes
  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?
    Thats two very different questions. In the first no. That would just generate drama. If I couldn't approach the case with an open mind I would just recluse. Any party? no. However there has to be some room to maneuver or we get people playing silly games with who is and isn't a party.
  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.
  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?
    No because it erodes trust and further politicises the system
  16. The purpose of the Committee is to resolve disruptive disputes which the community cannot. On ex-Arbitrator commented that "it is not about justice and fairness". Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment, to what extent and why?
    My degree is in chemistry not jurisprudence so I'll leave the arguments on the nature of justice to others and instead focus on fairness. Arbcom is, whether we like it or not, working in the art of the possible. Arbcom should be fair. But it can only be fair within the limits of its abilities. There are cases where no outcome that is completely fair to all parties is within arbcom's power (for example if a problem extends across project to commons).

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

Questions from Carrite

  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?
    letter? ᚙ Their greatest success is largely that they haven't done anything that caused a major drama. In their position thats quite an achievement.
  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?
    Given the long history of failure at speeding things up I'm unconvinced that anything can be done.
  6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?
    Support for some form of 3D file format.

Questions from Dennis Brown

  2. Without naming names, what skills or qualities do you have that are unique, that might not be present in the current Arbs or candidates? What makes you stand out?
    I don't think I do really. The existing bunch have a pretty broad skillet as do the other candidates candidates
  2. Assuming you are elected at Arb, what role do you expect to play as part of that committee?
    The one with the ability to turn their hand to anything. Slight tendency to being the first in line when there is an issue that covers commons as well as en
  2. What have you done at Wikipedia that you think makes you particularly suitable for the position of Arb?
    Everything. Well close. I've bounced around pretty much everything on wikipedia and related areas so whatever the case in front of the committee is I'd hope to have a good working knowledge of the context

Question(s) from Worm That Turned

  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?
    I've already been a target so nothing new there.

Question from Tryptofish

  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!

Question from Carcharoth

  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.

Questions from Bazonka

  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?
    Pretty heavily. Regular at various UK meetups and some wikimedia UK events.
  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?

Questions from Fæ

  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?
More