Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from Gerda Arendt

Thanks for being ready to offer your service! Last year, I asked 3 questions, this year it's only one: imagine you had never heard the name of the user in question, how would you comment in this case? My so far favourite comment has four words ;)
"No case to answer" would be my four words, because (as I think I commented at the time) as that was an edit that was directly improving the encyclopaedia and did not breach the restrictions because that was not adding, removing or discussing the addition or removal of an infobox. Note though that if I am elected I will have to recuse from the topic of infoboxes because I have loudly and passionately argued that they are a Good Thing for articles to have and that the committee got their handling of the case very badly wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gamaliel

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?
Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with civility per se, because it is an abstract concept with no consensus-agreed definition of what it actually means in practice. There are some users whose approach to civility is problematic, sometimes generally sometimes in specific circumstances, because it results in an atmosphere that is not conducive to writing an encyclopaedia. The lack of agreement about what is and is not being civil in the general case means that it isn't possible to enforce it in the same way that NPOV is. What can be done is to make it clear to people when their attitude or words are getting the way of the encyclopaedia (and this can be on all sides of a dispute). If they subsequently refuse to change their approach then things like topic and interaction bans and/or more nuanced remedies tailored to the specific circumstances (e.g. moderation of a talk page) should be tried. An important point though is that if you create a restriction with line that can be crossed, then every crossing of that line needs to result in sanctions regardless of who crossed it. Anyone who is baiting another user to cross the line should receive exactly the same consequences as if they crossed the line themselves, regardless if the baiting was successful or not.
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?
This is not something I've looked at in detail, but my impression is that gap in which topics are covered is to at least a significant extent a result of the gap in who contributes. Wikipedia can only be improved by an increasing breadth and depth of coverage of notable topics, so anything that hinders this is a problem, meaning that the gap in contributors is significant for that reason as well as being a problem in and of itself. Part of the problem is completely out of the control of Wikipedians - for example the under-representation of women in STEM fields means there is a smaller pool of female experts in those fields that Wikipedia can engage with and benefit from. The role of the Committee though is even more limited than that of the general Wikipedian. It can only step in to deal with extant disputes that the community has failed to resolve, it cannot (and absolutely should not) act proactively, for example to encourage any one group of editors over another - regardless of how or why. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect

Note I have split some of these multi-part questions into individual ones to make answering them easier. The question numbering is therefore different to that on other candidates' pages. Thryduulf (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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?
A case being opened doesn't mean that sanctions are inevitable, but it does mean they are likely. If there is obviously no case to answer, or it is obvious that there is nothing the Committee can do to help, then the case is not opened. If what has happened, and what the best outcome is, is obvious then the matter is dealt with by motion. This means that when a case is opened that there is behaviour and/or actions that need looking in to before it can be determined what course of action needs to happen. This most frequently means that one or more parties have done something and/or behaved in a manor that requires sanctions to remedy, but this is not inevitable. It is useful to compare recent cases and requests with ones from the first couple of years of the committee when disputes tended to arrive at ArbCom's door earlier and the threshold for accepting a case was lower (due to less mature community processes, policies and guidelines).
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?
This is clearly written with the 2013 Tea Party movement case in mind. In that case, a cutting-the-Gordian Knot solution was proposed whereby a whole swathe of editors would be topic banned from the eponymous topic area, based solely on evidence of involvement rather than wrong-doing. Given the almost intractable nature of that case (it dragged on for months) it was a brave proposal that galvanised the committee into action.
In the general case, I would say that in most circumstances a topic ban requires evidence that that editor's presence in the topic area is hindering the encyclopaedia's coverage of that topic area (or hindering processes or editors that facilitate it), either specific action(s) or general behaviour. However, when it is not possible to determine which specific editors are the problem it is appropriate that a no-fault topic ban be available. Think of it as a dispersal order following a riotous protest - everybody gets moved on whether they were rioting, aiding rioters, trying to stop rioting, spectating, or simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. This allows for space and time for fresh people with calmer attitudes to work on the problems with cooler heads. This does mean that some good editors are removed from a topic area they could improve, but this is an unfortunate side effect and no one person is bigger than the encyclopaedia.
It is not appropriate for most situations though, particularly it would not work for interpersonal (rather than topic-based) disputes.
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?
If the above dispersal order remedy is what is being used, then yes a topic ban can legitimately be imposed despite no support for topic bans being in evidence at AN/I. In most cases though a topic ban requires evidence, per the previous question, but the evidence presented at arbitration is often different from that presented at AN/I meaning that what editors there supported or did not support is not always comparable.
Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?
None. However that does not mean that my reading will always be the same as yours, or that I will always understand everything in the way that it was intended. Based on some Wikipedia discussions I've been involved with, even several careful readings will not mean I have the foggiest idea what some comments are about.
"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?
For those of us who are not scholars of legal Latin, the stare decisis article explains that term to mean "a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts."
The (other) problem with this question is that it presumes a lack of binding precedent means that interpretation of policies and guidelines will be inconsistent. My experience is that this is not a valid assumption to make. Policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are not static, and the contemporary interpretation of them evolves along with the project. I believe it is important that the Committee be able to interpret the policies and guidelines in line with both the contemporary project culture and the nuances of the specific circumstances of the individual case.
Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?
The five pillars are the underlying support for the project and they provide the lens through which the policies and guidelines were viewed when written and need to be viewed when interpreted. I'm not sure quite what you mean by "weighing principles" - which principles are most important to a case is impossible to answer in the abstract; and I view each of the five pillars as being equal in stature and unranked, so saying policy X is more important than policy Y because it derives from the first pillar rather than the third pillar is meaningless.
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" is not some magic word you can wave around and use as a get out of jail free card, nor can it be used to disregard some other policy or guideline. We should all be here to improve the encyclopaedia, either directly or by supporting and enabling those that do, and all our actions should be focused on that. How much "weight" any policy (including BLP) has depends on what the action under discussion was, what the circumstances surrounding it were, what it was intended to achieve and why they thought it would achieve that. Principles, findings and discussions are in turn all based on these factors, and so it is not possible to say that e.g. BLP will always carry more weight than NPOV, because in some circumstances the two will be pulling in opposite directions and in others they will be inseparable.
How would you personally define a "faction" in terms of Wikipedia editors?
Generally I wouldn't. "Faction" is a very polarising term and we should be seeking to work together and avoid battleground behaviour rather than pigeon-holing groups of people.
Question
That the concept of "factions" on Wikipedia exists is a problem. Yes there are groups of editors who feel so strongly about an issue they see as vital that the idea of collaboration goes out the window, but ultimately policy provides that people who are not willing or not able to work in a collaborative environment to produce a neutral encyclopaedia to be removed from it, in all or in part, for the good of the project. To my mind therefore, it seems like the arsenal is sufficient, but the Arbitration Committee is about resolving disputes by enforcing the current policies and guidelines, it is not about the fitness for purposes of those policies. That is the job of the legislature (on Wikipedia the populous, i.e. editors, are the legislature), not the judiciary.
Question
A "faction" is a group of people. Every editor on Wikpiedia is responsible for every action they take or do not take. So if a group of people are acting in a coordinate manor, then they all share the responsibility for the consequences of those actions. There is no concept of corporations or of corporate personhood on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Collect (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Everyking

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 aim to be as transparent as possible, but as I am not currently on the committee I do not have access to the non-public discussions to know what is being discussed and whether it could be (meaningfully) discussed on-wiki. Personal information is only one possible reason why things might not be public, other possible reasons are confidential information, harassment issues, information that would be prejudicial to something, discussions about whether something is sensitive or not, etc. additionally everybody has the right to think in private without broadcasting their half-formed thoughts, even if they want to discuss those thoughts with a colleague.
Accordingly, I am not able to make such a broad pledge and would not have confidence in the ability of someone who did make it to be able to keep it. I will pledge though to:
- Where possible, note when private discussions that I am party to are happening and why they are happening in private.
- Make all my comments in public where the is both possible and appropriate

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. Note: I have split some multi-part questions into individual ones for clarity. Question numbers are therefore different to those on other candidates' pages. Thryduulf (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What originally led you to join Wikipedia?
As noted in my statement, I joined very nearly 10 years ago. My first edit was to Talk:Internet, complaining about the neutrality of the (now long gone) "Self-destructive sub-cultures" section of the article.[1] I presume that was the reason I joined, but I can't at this distance be sure. Most likely I was doing (as I still do) and browsing the internet and reading about various subjects. I do have hazy memories of reading Wikipedia when looking for information about the Ufton Nervet rail crash when that was breaking news.
What do you do on the site on a day-to-day basis?
This can vary considerably. The biggest single area I am involved in is WP:RFD, where I am probably the most active editor of all time (off-topic, but I'd be interested in stats on this if anyone knows how to tally over all the daily subpages) both as a commenter and as an admin. My focus there is very, very strongly in standing up for the interests of the readers and reusers of the encyclopaedia, which produces some occasionally lengthy discussions with other editors that have a different opinion about the harmlessness of redirects they don't personally see the benefit in.
I spend quite a bit of time following arbitration requests and commenting where I feel I have something to offer, most recently this has been in relation to the bumper request at WP:ARCA] for the repeal of discretionary sanctions that are no longer required.
Other areas of project space that I have been frequenting recently have been the WikiProject Trains, UK Railways, and Public Art/London WikiProjects; and WP:ITN/C.
I chime in on various RfCs and talk page discussions where I feel I have something of value to contribute, most recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software.
I do a lot of reading of the encyclopaedia, across various subjects, performing gnomish edits when I encounter the need for them. For example I did a lot of cleanup on the Chinese pangolin article a few days ago.
Beyond that, I dip into and out of things - take a look at my contributions!
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?
My experience of this is very varied. Most voluminously this has been at WP:RFD where the philosophies range from inclusionist to deletionist, sometimes quite significantly, but many collaborations on various WikiProjects and talk pages over the years, and within arbitration case discussions have also formed part of my makeup as an editor. The biggest take-homes from these have been the benefits of patience, willingness to listen, explain and compromise. I have not been in any significant disputes with other editors since before I became an admin over 9 years ago, so I appear to be doing something right.
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 am very familiar with the arbitration process as an outside observer and sometimes non-party participant. I do not think that there anything fundamentally flawed about the process, as it gets it right in the majority of the cases so I do not see the need for any significant reform here. If elected, I plan to keep people in touch with what is happening behind the scenes as much as possible. Ideally every request should be acknowledged within a maximum of 48 hours, and every case should have at least one edit by at least one arbitrator every week, and where I am able I intend to try and achieve this.
As I understand it then problem that causes requests to be untouched or hurried is the workload caused by behind-the-scenes things like ban appeals and child protection issues. The proposed WP:BASC reform will significantly help matters here, and I have heard unofficially that discussions are progressing (albeit slowly) towards transferring the child protection matters to the WMF (which is frankly where it belongs). This should free up time for the actual arbitration.
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?
Mentoring is brilliant. When a subject expert is prepared to learn about Wikipedia and they have access to someone (physically or virtually) who can teach them the ropes everybody benefits. It doesn't work in every case - Wikipedians need to be prepared to give people a little slack and remember that there is a learning curve and people will make mistakes while climbing it; experts need to understand that NPOV and Verifiability are non-negotiable, that Wikipedia has a learning curve and that it will not change to accommodate them. Without that on both sides it will never work. Outreach work by the local chapters is very important in this regard as well, but again it needs cooperation from general editors. WP:BITE is something that is underenforced in my book - everybody I know who has had dealings with the WP:TEAHOUSE sings its praises, but I haven't direct experience. Ultimately, every person who comes to Wikipedia in good faith has something they can bring with them, and those of us who are already here must always be prepared to learn from them.
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?
In general the biggest problem with adminship on this project is not removing it but with gaining it in the first place - certainly not when compared with Commons. I have no strong opinions either way on a community process for admin review, beyond having not seen any proposal for periodic reviews of adminship that scaled to the required level.
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 have real-life experience of dealing with people going though emotional issues like this (I cannot go into detail online though). I have good inter-personal relationships with many people in the Foundation, and see no issues with any communication with them about legal issues. As for being harassed myself, it's obviously not something I want to experience but I'm pretty open with who I am and I have far better things to do with my life than to read let alone participate in the venues where this is likely to happen. A few years ago I did have a look for what one place said about me and from what I remember the best they came up with was something to the effect of "rather boring"!
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 am not familiar with all the details of those policies at present, having had no reason to become so in the case of the first two, but obviously that will change if I am elected. On the whole, I am not aware of any general problems with the way staff or volunteers handle private information but it isn't an area that I have spent any time looking at in detail.
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?
In a nutshell, if it can be handled by the community it should be. Arbitration should be reserved for cases where there is a legal or other reason why it would be inappropriate for it to be handled in public by the community, or where the community has tried and failed to resolve it.

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from EllenCT

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?
All behaviour issues are potentially within the Committee's remit. In practice however, the Committee can only be involved if the behaviour is part of a problem that the community have been unable to solve before it gets to arbitration, and only if evidence is presented to the committee about it and its relevance to the problem at hand. The Committee would of course rightly be unable to determine anything about reliability or otherwise of the sources themselves - it could find that "There is a consensus among editors that example.com is a reliable source." but it could not find that "example.com is a reliable source.".
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?
Certainly if someone is accused of pushing a POV I'll need to understand what POV it is they are accused of pushing, and why other editors feel this does not represent a neutral POV. In at least some cases this will require verifying the sources are as claimed. For example if someone is accused of pushing a POV that Joe Bloggs was murdered, this might be obvious from their contributions but if their edits are replacing references to XYZ.com with ones to GHI.com then I would need to read XYZ.com and GHI.com to see whether the claims this is POV pushing are accurate. If though there was widespread consensus that GHI.com was an unreliable source then I may not need to. It all depends on the situation, what the dispute is and what evidence is presented.
Fundamentally, ArbCom is about behaviour, and that is the focus of the cases. It isn't here to solve content disputes, so it is not necessary to understand or verify the sources beyond what is needed to resolve the behavioural dispute. When a content dispute arrives at the Committee, the aim is to resolve the behavioural issues so that the editors in the topic area are able to solve the content dispute.
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?
This depends on what the community's view of those sources are (reliability does not imply relevance for example), why those editors disagree with those particular conclusions, what discussions have gone beforehand, how all parties have behaved, and what is stopping the community from resolving the dispute themselves. I find it difficult to think of a scenario where this sort of dispute will not have been dealt with at a lower level before arbcom needs to get involved.
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?
It sounds to me like you are envisaging a situation where someone is accused of being unable to edit neutrally in a given topic area (remember having a COI is not a problem in itself). If such a dispute were to end up at ArbCom then I would expect the parties to present the evidence they feel is relevant to the issue. The actions you describe certainly have the potential to be relevant. Note though that just because a source is sponsored by someone with a COI does not mean it is not a valuable source in some contexts (e.g. reporting on what that company's position is; or it might be used to verify facts that are not in dispute but whose interpretation is) and this can often depend on what other sources are out there and what the COI is - sources can be both high quality and biassed (e.g. a newspaper with strong political leanings).

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rich Farmbrough

Note I have split some mutli-part questions into individidual ones for clarity. Question numbering is therefore different from on other candidates' pages.

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?
Firstly I disagree that this is a policy change. Policy allows the Arbitration Committee to places relevant areas under discretionary sanctions, and this is what was done. Probably it could have been better advertised, but that's a different matter.
As with all remedies, the scope should be a balance of the minimum necessary to achieve the stability and productivity of a topic area, without being too detailed or too complex such that there is a flood of wikilawyering and/or amendment and clarification requests. See for example the committee declining to put the whole US politics sphere under DS. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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?
At present I am generally time rich. If in the future my available time becomes too limited to fulfil my duties I will resign - I don't see this happening on any long term basis at present though (not being confident of my ability to serve a full term was a key reason for my not standing last year). There will be days here and there where I am not available, and there is likely to be a week in May when I will have at best limited internet access, but that will not be a problem.
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?
Yes, absolutely. I've suggested similar things in the past myself.
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?
Patience is something I have been blessed with, so I don't foresee any problems with this at all. There has only been one occasion in the past 2-3 years I can think of when I have come close to losing my temper, and this was nothing to do with anything on-wiki.
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?
I'm not going to promise not to do this, as there may be times I am presented with something that I feel can be dealt with by motion which of necessity involves the expressing of opinions at the request stage. There is also a difference between saying something like "based on the evidence here, it is likely that we'll be issuing topic bans for a couple of users" but needing a full case to get to the bottom of what is happening - including any mitigating evidence; and "user:Example is looking at a ban but we need to look to see if anyone else is going with them.". The former is acceptable in my book - summarising the appearance of things based on the evidence so-far presented, the latter is prejudging and should be avoided imo.
Do you think Arbitrators should have the power to add any party they like to a case?
Yes, provided that the addition is justified in the context of the case and that this justification is presented on-wiki if asked for.
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?
No, because the recusal system serves in appearance and in practice as the complete separation between person and case. Requiring a sitting arbitrator to additionally give up the right to bring cases would weaken the appearance of that recusal system and damage the apparent fairness of cases where an arbitrator is a party to a case brought by another editor.
That said, the first and only time I have brought a case to arbitration where I was regarded as a party was in 2005 and (with the exception of infoboxes) I don't see any of the areas I have been involved in at all recently as likely to come before the committee in the next couple of years.
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?
I do not see myself making much use of the checkuser right at all. Unless I receive some training in the use of the tool, I do not consider that I have the technical skills necessary to correctly interpret results (I do not grok how IP ranges are calculated for example). With training, I suspect I could learn sufficiently to check the work of others is not incorrect where necessary, but I would rather leave the bulk of checkuser work to those that are natively competent. It would not surprise me if after 2 years on the committee I had not made a single checkuser block.
On the question of marking blocks as checkuser blocks, this is the first time I've heard allegations like this. Without having heard any of the arguments either way, my initial feeling is that the "checkuser block" label should only be used where some or all of the evidence used to make the decision to block is not available, and cannot be made available, to those who cannot see the results of a checkuser. Any other uses would seem to be misleading at best.
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?
Arbitration is certainly not about justice. Two key element of justice are punitive punishment for offenders and retribution or compensation for the acts of others that were contrary to the rules or laws; neither of which are the Wikipedia way of doing things.
Fairness is less clear. It is important that everybody has the opportunity of a fair hearing (some people don't get one because of their own actions, e.g. by refusing to participate), but arbitration isn't about being fair to everybody. Arbitration is about improving the encyclopaedia by resolving disputes that are preventing that. In many cases resolving disputes does involve being fair to all the parties, but there are situations where the good of the encyclopaedia must come above fairness to parties. See my answer to Collect's second question for one extreme example.
Fairness is at the heart of my personal moral code, so departing from it is not something I am keen to do or will do lightly.

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

Questions from Carrite

Questions split, numbering therefore different to other candidates' pages. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you were assigning a letter grade to Arbcom for its work in 2014, what would that grade be?
I wouldn't. It is not possible to accurately summarise the great variety of work the committee does and the various outcomes these have had in single letter.
What was the [2014] committee's greatest success and their worst mistake?
The worst mistake has undoubtedly been failing to deal with the infoboxes mess that the 2013 committee left them. They have had several opportunities to say "we got it wrong, this isn't working" but they have basically just stuck their heads in the sand and refused to see that there is a problem. It's a shame that I would have to recuse when (not if) it comes before the 2015 committee, but it is equally absolutely correct that I should recuse.
Otherwise it's generally been a quietly competent year for the committee with no great dramas (although the GamerGate topic has the potential to become so, it hasn't yet) so it's difficult to highlight just one thing as a success, but I'm tempted to say the restraint shown in the American Politics case was good. It would have been easy to just slap discretionary sanctions on the whole area and topic ban some of the key players, but that would have been overkill. I don't follow the topic area closely (I'm British so the minutiae of US politics is not of great interest to me) but from the perspective of an outside observer it seems to be so far so good.
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?
Workload is the biggest issue. Divesting the committee of some of the behind the scenes stuff would significantly help, as would having each case dealt with by only 5 or 7 arbitrators (see also Rich Farmbrough's questions).
If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?
It needs to be more welcoming to new and prospective editors. The attitudes displayed by some people that Wikipedia editing should be hard (technically and/or culturally), that you should have just deal with newbie-biting and incivility, and that you should have to earn respect as an editor before being part of the community are especially damaging to the project. We also need to reign in some of the deletion-happy new page patrollers, taggers and admins. My views that IAR is never an acceptable reason to speedy delete any page, that when an image is nominated for deletion the talk pages of everywhere it is used must be informed, and that redirects that are used (determined by links or page views, regardless of how may) are by definition plausible and therefore should not be deleted as such are sometimes controversial, but I strongly believe that these would help the project immensely. See also Rschen7754's question #5.
This is mostly not within the purview of the committee though, beyond taking a hard line on these issues should they be part of a case that comes to ArbCom.

Thank you for your answers. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Dennis Brown

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 have a lot more experience on Wikipedia than many of the candidates, and I have been paying close attention to ArbCom for several years meaning I have as probably good idea of how it all works as it is possible to have without being an arbitrator. Communication, patience, level-headedness and attention to detail are things I'm good at that I feel are essential for an arbitrator.
Assuming you are elected at Arb, what role do you expect to play as part of that committee?
I expect to play the role of an arbitrator. The committee doesn't have defined roles (formal or informal), such as chair or spokesperson, so this question makes little sense.
What have you done at Wikipedia that you think makes you particularly suitable for the position of Arb?
See my answers to other questions about experience, particularly those from Rschen7754

Question(s) from Worm That Turned

Hi Thydruulf. I'm glad to see you decided to run. 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?
The "dark side" was one of the reasons why it took me so long to decide whether to run or not. Nobody likes being misquoted, being insulted¸ harassed or derided - and frankly they shouldn't have to put up with it, but until someone comes up with a fix for human nature I think that at least some of it is inevitable. As someone who has lots of opinions, sometimes controversial, and isn't usually afraid to express them, I am somewhat used to being deliberately misinterpreted and having motives called into question so that part doesn't really bother me. I don't read Wikipedia criticism sites, because while constructive criticism is good and valuable the sites I am aware of contain so little of that amid the sea of abuse, irrelevancy and trolling that they are not worth my time. This means that I will remain in (blissful?) ignorance of much of the nastiness.
In addition, I have a good network of friends and family who can help me through any issues that do happen, but I'm thick skinned and don't let things get to me. Thank you for one of the better questions I've so far been asked.

Thanks for answering Thydruulf, you've inspired confidence in me! Good luck. Worm^TT(talk) 09:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tryptofish

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!
I will come back to this question when I'm more awake, but on first reading I'm slightly confused. It isn't immediately clear to me when "Arbitrators" means "an individual arbitrator", when it means "any individual arbitrator" and when it means "multiple individual arbitrators"?
Bearing in mind the above lack of clear understanding and that I haven't read it yet in detail, my initial gut feeling is that something like this would be better as a guide rather than a procedure (ArbCom really isn't in need of more bureaucracy). I also want to stress that as am not presently an arbitrator I do not know the content of private discussions, so I will not be able to say for certain whether it is even applicable to all of them - mandating something rigid that doesn't fit what it is trying to regulate seems a really bad idea (I used to work in the UK civil service so I have experienced my fair share of checklists that actually hinder the work it's meant to be facilitating).
This is not a final answer, but as it might be tomorrow afternoon or early evening (UK time) before I get the chance to look in detail, I wanted to give my initial impressions and seek clarification when I first saw it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again now I am awake:
- The "Emails by Arbitrators" section is common sense and entirely fine if I am correct in thinking it is referring to an arbitrator quoting emails they have written themselves.
- The "Internal discussions leading to decisions of Committee business" needs work as it tells an arbitrator that they can paraphrase other arbitrators freely but then contradicts itself and says that all paraphrasing must be agreed first. It then instructs the results of this discussion be posted (verbatim is implied) when verbatim copying has just been prohibited (the result would have to be paraphrased, and the paraphrasing agreed on, going round in circles). The intention is clear but if this is to be anything other than a very loose guideline it cannot have inconsistencies like this.
- The "Requests from outside the Committee, about Committee discussions" section can be dispensed with entirely by changing the words "or publicly report the information" in the previous section to "or report the information publicly or privately (e.g. by email)"
- The "Emails sent to the list by Arbitrators" and "Emails sent to the list by other parties" sections are good, as they are.
Not covered anywhere is:
- When emails sent to the mailing list, but which are not internal discussions leading to official decisions, may be paraphrased (e.g. informal advice, discussions that go stale, discussions where arbitrators agree to disagree, where it is agreed no formal decision is needed, etc).
- When forms of communication other than emails (e.g. private messaging, the arbitration wiki, text messages, etc) may be published and/or paraphrased.
So to sum up, something like this could function as a guideline but it needs work before it is ready. I'm reluctant to endorse something like this as a procedure or policy without knowing the full range of non-public communication that arbitrators receive and exchange, but I have no objection in principle to a well-written procedure or policy about this existing.

Question from Carcharoth

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.
See below
would you do in the following situation? Parties to a case make strident and repeated calls for your recusal.
Every time someone asks for my recusal I will consider doing so, considering the subject matter, the parties and my previous interactions with them, and the reasons given by the people asking for me to recuse, especially if any comments are received from parties not involved in the dispute (such comments are always welcome). I will not recuse without a credible reason for doing so - reasons such as "I don't like you" or "you will be too fair" are not credible. If people are asking for my recusal without giving any reasons at all then they are unlikely to get their way. Whether asked or not I will seek advice of fellow arbitrators and outside parties if I am unsure if I should recuse or not.
would you do in the following situation? You sense you are very tired/ill or not fully alert, but voting needs to be done.
This depends on how long I think it will be before I am sufficiently alert and how many other arbitrators also need to vote. If it's just me left to vote and it will be more than a few hours (i.e. a night's sleep) before I am alert I will almost certainly just abstain - it would be unfair to the parties and other arbs to leave it hanging longer. If I am not the only person whose votes are awaited and all I need is some sleep, then I will come to it first thing in the morning - in this situation a few hours delay on my part is unlikely to have any significant impact. I may give a holding statement or preliminary view if I feel that would be beneficial (see my answer to Tryptofish' question for example). If I am going to be absent longer term, then I will mark myself (or ask to be marked) as inactive on some or all matters until I can give them the attention they deserve.
My answer to your scenario 2 ("Real life intervenes while you are halfway through voting on a case and you don't know when you will be able to continue") would also be along these lines - choosing to abstain from voting on remedies I cannot fully consider.
would you do in the following situation? Voting on a remedy to ban someone is deadlocked and you have the casting vote
In almost every situation I would follow what T. Canens on the Infoboxes case, "Indefinitely separating an long-term dedicated editor from this project should take more than the closest possible vote of a divided committee." (link) and either oppose or abstain. In cases where the person proposed to be banned though is not here to build an encyclopaedia, and/or has repeatedly proven themselves incapable of working collegiately with people who are here to advance the project then I would be prepared to be the casting vote for a ban. However it would have to be an extraordinary set of circumstances for the committee to be so divided about such a person.
would you do in the following situation? Parties to a case are squabbling on the case pages and no clerks are around.
I'd just do what was necessary myself. While having clerks is supremely useful for removing some of the workload on arbitrators, there is no point in standing on bureaucracy if it would get in the way of resolving a dispute. Depending on the situation I would consider very short term (~a few hours) page protection or blocks if parties are unable to maintain the appropriate focus on resolving the dispute.

@Carcharoth: Thank you for these questions, they are exactly the sort of thing that should be asked of prospective arbitrators. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Bazonka

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?
I am very involved with off-line activities, in addition to being a regular at the London and Oxford meetups I've been to at least one meetup in Leeds, Cambridge, Portsmouth, Bristol and Birmingham (I hope to attend meets elsewhere as well, time and money permitting). I was employed by Wikimedia UK to help deliver Wikimania in London this year, where I met a very large number of Wikimedians and I've also helped at various Wikimedia UK editathons and other events. I don't anticipate my being on arbcom would significantly affect this.
edited to add: I also attended the first Wikimania in Frankfurt in 2005, and hope to be at the Mexico City Wikimania in August next year.
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?
As a big fan of many different types of pie, this is one of the more difficult questions I've been asked during this election. In the realm of sweet pies, you have to go a long way to better apple pie in my view. With savoury pies, my favourite is possibly my mother's home made vegetable pie, but I am also partial to a decent chicken and mushroom or steak and ale pie when dining out. There are very few pies I will turn down though.

Questions from Fæ

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 a cis-gendered heterosexual male, but despite not falling into any of the minority groups myself I have a very large number of friends, including very close friends, that do - indeed I know significantly more people who are (openly) trans* or otherwise don't fit within the traditional binary definition of gender than is typical for someone who is not themselves. I bring to the committee my absolute commitment to equality (I don't really understand why anyone would choose to discriminate against most of these groups) and a willingness to discuss issues with my friends (without violating confidentiality of course) to get their perspective on matters when this is relevant.
It is my understanding that only one candidate for this election is female, and I intend to try and gain and understanding why this is after the elections are over to see if there is anything that can be done to encourage more female candidates next year (I don't want to prejudice or disrupt anything while they are still ongoing). Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]