Individual questions[edit]

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Yash!

  2. In the past couple of years, the ArbCom has closed various cases, passed motions, and such. Is/Are there any outcome/s that you disagree with? If yes, which? And, what result/s would you have rather preferred? Yash! 06:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Yash! To be honest, in almost nine years I can probably count on one hand the number of cases I have followed, so I don't really have much of an opinion on the closure of past cases. As far as the ones that I have seen, it's my belief that the committees have done the best they could under the circumstances. It is impossible to be all things to all people, and an ideal outcome for one is a disaster for another. But if you want at least one that I didn't agree fully with, out of the ones that I followed, I would say that Chase me ladies, I'm the cavalry probably shouldn't have lost the sysop bit.

Questions from Gerda Arendt

Thank you for stepping forward!

  2. Arbitration findings and the wishes of principal editors govern the use of infoboxes in articles. If you want to win my "neutral" please say how you would close the discussion at Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?
    Hellow Gerda. As it sits now, if I had to close it, I would close it as no consensus, although the discussion is leaning to include.
It will be no consensus for ever, unless you look at the quality of arguments. It would get less consensus with more voices, - I picked this example for being (mercifully) short.
  2. An editor has been blocked for a month in the name of arbitration enforcement for having said that he creates half of his featured content with women. I find it kafkaesque and remember the opening of The Metamorphosis for an analogy. If you want to win my "support", please - on top of #1 - suggest improvements to get from arbitration enforcement ("not a fun place") to arbitration supervision, where such a thing would not happen. I offered some thoughts, wishing to see Floquenbeam's "no foul, play on" more often, or Yunshui's "The edit was unproblematic and actually made Wikipedia better."
    I think that provisions need to be made to ensure that no action can be seen as an action. Dennis Brown (and others) refers to the first to block advantage, basically any report sits until someone decides to act on it. That isn't always the best course of action, as some times no action is the best action, but that needs to be logged/tracked somewhere. I think this is particularly important in the case of non-urgent matters (i.e. in instances where Wikipedia will not self implode unless someone is blocked in the next twenty minutes). I just read your template for the first time, and find it to be quite a reasonable premise.
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Worm That Turned

  2. Hi, I'm Dave, I was on Arbcom between 2013 and 2014. 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?
    Comments taken out of context, motive and abilities insulted, threats and harassment, that is just a standard day at the office in the mining industry Dave. Kidding aside, I have put some thought into this, and the decision to run is not one I have taken lightly, I have pretty broad shoulders. I don't mind being told when I am wrong (it happens often enough), in fact I am prepared for all (most?) of Wikipedia to tell me you were wrong for the next two years. All part of the job I suppose.
    Thanks for the answer Kelapstick, and best of luck. WormTT(talk) 09:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?
    Yes, a case can be opened without the presumption of sanctions. If that happens in practice however is another story. The imposition of sanctions is usually inevitable, but not mandatory.
  4. If an administrator states (hypothetically) "You will vote however you like, and I am frankly not interested in changing your mind, but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me. At the moment, you are not", would that administrator be considered "involved" or "impartial" in any way with the editor in whose talk space he made such an edit?
    That's a bit of a vague for instance, but in general I would consider that discussion to be enough to consider the administrator involved enough to not take administrative actions towards the other user, and should any actions be needed, they approach someone else to review it. It's difficult to say for certain without additional context, however.
  6. Are arbitators under any reasonable obligation to afford editors who are out of the country on a trip, or have other substantial reasons for absence from a case, any delays in considering cases concerning them? If such a person is given only 1000 words to rebut 1000 words from each of five or more "evidence providers", is that a reasonable limit to place on the defendant, or ought the limit be raised to allow rebuttal of each such section?
    I would be somewhat hypocritical if I said that editors shouldn't be provided reasonable accommodation, considering in my nomination statement I said I would be traveling outside my home country during this election. I do think that users should be given some degree of accommodation, provided the departure isn't strictly to let the issues blow over (or ANI flu as it's called I believe). A case can be put on hold until the user starts editing again, and I see no harm in that. We are all volunteers here, after all. As far as the word limits go, some degree of leeway should be provided, as long as the defendant isn't simply rambling, pointing fingers at everyone else, and generally pontificating. An ArbCom case works best when everyone is concise and to the point, theoretically.

Questions from Guerillero

Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. Many of these questions are sourced from actual cases, discussions, and problems over the past year. Enjoy!

Subcommittees

  2. The Audit Subcommittee was created in 2009 to investigate improper tool usage of our Check Users and Oversighters. Currently, neither the community nor the committee can decide how to handle it. There have been calls to completely disband the subcommittee, transfer its role to the functionaries en banc, and extend it for another year. The current auditors terms expired on 1 October, 2015 and they have been continuing in their roles without formal authorization. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?
    This brings up two interesting questions, Who Checkusers and Oversighters report to? What is the role of the Functionaries team? Regarding Q1, I was appointed an oversighter by the Arbitration Committee, so I consider myself serving at the pleasure of the committee. Naturally there has to be some way to audit my use if necessary, and that cam only be done by another oversight user, and the easiest pool of oversighters (and CheckUsers) to draw from is the Arbitration Committee. Transferring this responsibility over to the Functionaries team as you describe leads into my second question, What is the role of the Functionaries team?
    The Functionaries team isn't really a team, it's a mailing list. It has no power to act, other than within the scope of the permissions of the individual holders. I can't go around CheckUser blocking just because I am a functionary, and to my knowledge there is no such thing as a Functionary block. We aren't ArbCom 2.0, and we hold no collective authority. Converting us to a group that self audits is a major shift in scope of the group from advisory to self policing. Maybe that's a good thing, since it allows some degree more transparency on the auditing of advanced permission use (increasing the number of people involved from six to about forty). Regardless for privacy reasons (in most cases) it is near impossible to expand the auditing of CU and OS beyond self auditing. Having said that, without a formal AUSC, it's one less election/appointment, less bureaucracy, less red tape. Which is a good thing I suppose.
    What should we do in the short term? Probably the first order of business of the incoming committee should be to update the AUSC either by new appointments or by extension of term, then decide what is to be done.
  4. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee exists to hear appeals of community bans and long-term blocks. There have been moves to divest this role from the committee. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?
    My personal opinion is that the BASC should be used only to overturn (or not overturn) Bans (not long term blocks, actual bans) as implemented at AN or AN/I (in other words those implemented by the community, not the committee). I don't think the BASC has to be made up of Arbitrators, but again, it's the easiest place to find a group of trusted users to draw from. Per above, expanding the scope of the Functionaries team, maybe it should actually be made up of two non-arbitrating Oversighters and two non-arbitrating CheckUsers. I don't personally have any plans for this subcommittee if I am elected, but there is a suggestion, for better or worse.

Current Disputes and Cases

  2. What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?
    The ban is the most permanent action that we can take at the user (non-WMF) level, so all (or many) other avenues must be tried before it is enacted (including topic and interaction bans). I would say that the general standard for a ban is that there is really no hope that the user in question will be able to participate within the required parameters of the project.
  4. Nearly every case involves violations of the civility policy in some way. At one time, a remedy call a "Civility Parole" existed but it fell out of vogue. Today, the only tools in the current Arbitrator's toolboxes to deal with civility issues are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. What new and creative ways would you bring to the table to solve this problem?
    Not sure what new and creative ways I could come up with, maybe an edit filter that prevents (or warns) an individual from discussing another specific individual as required (like a technically forced interaction ban). Or prevents a user from being mentioned on a specific (user talk) page? I don't know if these specifically would work, probably not. But Rome wasn't built in a day.
  6. Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?
    I think it does exist to some degree, and even the perception that it exists is an issue. Broadly speaking I would recommend the same enforcement/sanctions on an administrator as I would a non-administrator. Thats not to say that blocking should automatically come with a desysop, or that all desysops should (or should not) accompany blocks of administrators. I just think a reasonable amount of consistency is important, and I don't think we necessarily see that.
  8. Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?
    I think warnings can be helpful as they can have consequences attached to them, admonishments I don't see as much value in.

Insider Baseball

  2. Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?
    I think it can be useful, provided it's used as intended, rather than a duplicate of the evidence page, or editors complaining about each other, or just posting what their preferred actions are. Having said that, just because something can be useful doesn't mean it is. You would probably have a better idea than I would as to if it is a useful portion, and I would be interested in hearing your, and other existing and past Arb thoughts on the matter (at some point after the election).

Question from Smallbones

  2. Wikipedia is starting to have a reputation for bullying and misogyny, see, e.g the recent article in The Atlantic by Emma Paling, "Wikipedia's Hostility to Women”.
    Are you willing to take serious steps to stop bullying of editors on Wikipedia? especially bullying directed toward women editors? Is this one of your top 2 priorities? What would you consider to be a more important priority than stopping the bullying? Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I will do what I can in order to stop bullying of editors, and female editors do receive a significantly disproportionate amount of harassment, and that has to stop. Having said that, I don't maintain a list of priorities, ordered by importance, but if I did, it would be high on the list.

Question from Biblioworm

  2. Do you have experience in successfully resolving disputes, either on-wiki or off-wiki?
    This week I convinced my oldest child to eat mashed potatoes, rice, and pasta. If that isn't dispute resolution, I don't know what is.

Questions from GrammarFascist

  2. Please divulge as much of your demographic information as you are comfortable making public. Specifically: your gender, including whether you are cis, trans or other; your sexual orientation; your race and/or ethnicity; where you live (feel free to specify you live in Triesenberg if you want, but a country or continent will do just fine — even just "Southern Hemisphere" or "Western Hemisphere" is helpful); whether you have any condition considered a disability (even if you're not so disabled you're unable to work) including deafness, physical disabilities, developmental disabilities and mental illnesses, again being only as specific as you wish; and what social class you belong to (e.g. working class, middle class, etc.). ¶ If you prefer not to answer any or all of those categories, I won't count it against you. My intention in asking for this information is not to out anyone or try to force affirmative action. However, when deciding between two otherwise equally qualified candidates, I would prefer to be able to vote for more diversity on ArbCom rather than less.
    The extent of personal information I am willing to offer can be found on my user page, and probably additionally on some discussion pages. This sort of questioning would be blatantly illegal to ask during a regular job interview in Canada, and I don't believe this sort of questioning should be permitted for a volunteer role such as this. If a candidate doesn't offer sufficient information on their user page, you are free to oppose them based on that.
  4. Please list at least one pro and one con of having non-administrators serve on ArbCom.
    Pro: Fresh perspective.
    Pro: No experience doing what admins do.
    Con: No experience doing what admins do.
    Con: Cannot perform administrative actions related to decisions by the committee.
Thanks for responding, Kelapstick. For the record, I consider this more an election than a job application situation (though you're welcome to disagree) and political candidates' demographic markers are usually considered fair game in elections, even, I think, in Canada. But again, your declining to answer that question directly is not going to be held against you. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 00:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Brustopher

Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on WP:OUTING. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.

  2. User:Foo get's into an edit conflict on Wikipedia with User:Bar, and end up as parties to a large Arbcom case. Soon afterwards on reddit someone going by the username Bar begins posting lots of critical and disparaging threads about Foo. In these threads they claim to be Wikipedia user Bar. The Bar account on Wikipedia is older than the Bar account on reddit by several years, however the Wikipedia account had only really begun active editing a few years after the reddit account had been created. Foo notices these posts and complains on Bar's talk page and ANI. Bar responds by accusing Foo of WP:OUTING and claims that the account might not even be his. Is it OUTING to connect the Bar reddit account with the Bar Wikipedia account?
    In my opinion, outing off Wikipedia should be treated the same as outing on Wikipedia, with the understanding that it may be more difficult to prove since we don't have CheckUser data for other websites (for example).
  4. User:Alice is a party in an Arbcom case. She is browsing the internet one day and decides to google her Wikipedia username. She finds that somebody has uploaded naked photos of another woman to a pornsite and labelled them "Alice of Wikipedia." She looks into the account that has uploaded these files and comes to the conclusion that it is owned by Wikipedia User:Bob, an editor she had clashed with heavily on wiki. In the process she also finds out his real life identity. She emails her evidence to Arbcom. Alice then decides to go to Wikipediocracy's forums, and makes a thread informing them of this porn site account. She asks them if they can guess which Wikipedia editor is behind it, and mentions that she also knows his real life identity. They independently come to the conclusion that it is User:Bob and figure out his real life identity without Alice giving the game away. Alice confirms that this is the case. Nobody in the forum finds it remotely questionable that Bob owns the account in question. In such a situation is it appropriate for Arbcom to pass a finding of fact stating "Alice posted inappropriately to an off-wiki website apparently with the objective of having the participants identify a Wikipedia editor by name." Furthermore is it appropriate for them to then use this supposed violation of WP:OUTING as part of their justification for site banning Alice?
    In the same manner as above, harassment of a Wikipedian, by another Wikipedian, off Wikipedia, should be treated the same as if it were on Wikipedia, with the same understanding that it may be difficult to prove. Having said that, eye for a eye retaliation is not appropriate either, and as mentioned above outing off Wikipedia should be treated the same as outing on Wikipedia.

Questions from Antony–22

  2. In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it?
    Free speech, such as that which is protected by the First Amendment of the US constitution, only protects from government censorship, not activity on a private website. Free speech has never been a right guaranteed to anyone on any WMF project. So enforcing civility does not hinder free speech, as there is no right to free speech on Wikipedia.
  4. It's been pointed out that incivility and harassment are not precisely the same thing. What is the line between incivility and harassment? How much does incivility, when it doesn't cross the line into harassment, affect our ability to retain editors, including but not limited to its effects on the gender gap?
    It's not that incivility and harassment are not precisely the same thing, they are not at all the same thing. One can be uncivil without harassing someone, and one can be very civil in one one's harassment. Generally speaking, incivility is akin to rudeness and poor manners, and different people have different opinions on what constitutes incivility. Harassment is very different, and much more serious, I would consider it offensive behaviour targeted at a specific person or group of persons. Of course both of these descriptions are not all encompassing, if you asked ten different people you would probably have ten different definitions. I don't know how much incivility and harassment actually drives people in general (and women specifically) away from the project, but I know it is significant enough to make it a serious issue. What I can say for sure is that Wikipedia (and the world in general) would be a much better place if people didn't act like colossal jackasses.
  6. Arbcom's actions have come under srutiny from the outside press lately, often leading to articles with factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Imagine that you are a current member of the Arbcom and you are delegated the task of writing a succinct, neutral primer for the press on the circumstances leading to the current case Arbitration enforcement 2. Write that primer below. (The press likes succinctness too, so no more than a few paragraphs worth of text.)
Because it came up elsewhere, I'd like to clarify that this question does not cover the proposed or actual decision, but about how you would help a reporter understand what happened before the case was filed. I'm not sure if this affects your answer at all, but I wanted to be sure to make the same clarification to everyone. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, it does not affect my response. It should be noted that I am not a media representative for Wikipedia, the WMF, nor do I intend to be one for the Arbitration Committee, should I be elected. Therefore I will not be writing any primers for the press. Doing so seems like a bad idea, in my opinion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Okay, more generally, do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under scrutiny? For example, do you think that releasing statements, such as been done once on a previous case, should be considered in the future? If so, how could they me made more effective?
    No. I think it is ArbCom's job to hear cases related to editor conduct, not to educate reporters. Everything on that statement page can be found on the pages relating to the Arbitration Process, and the case pages, a reporter should be able to find and read the relevant information without the committee summarizing it for them. Of course future committees may decide to do such a statement in the future, but I don't think that will be that common an occurrence.
  4. One last question. Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural, even transgressive nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals from academic and cultural institutions. This is perhaps causing some angst that the community and its interactions may become "professionalized" to the exclusion of established editors. Do you feel this fear is warranted? How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?
    Is the WMF bringing in paid professional academic editors? That's news to me.

Optional Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

  2. Is Terms of Use a policy ? Do you believe that ArbCom can sanction undisclosed paid editors if there is evidence that they violated TOU ? (Please note several polices have been made by Jimbo/WMF without ENG Wiki consensus like Global ban, Global CU, Global OS, Privacy, Access to nonpublic data and Arbitration and also pointed here
    While the Terms of Use are the rules for Wikimedia projects, they are not local policy. It would be interesting to find out how many Wikimedians have actually read them. It's been a while since I registered, is there even a little checkbox that says I have read and agree to the Terms of Use when registering an account for the first time? Because that is what they remind me of. So yes, they are the rules, and yes we have to follow them, however directly under the paid editing section it says We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms. So while ArbCom can sanction paid editors as a ToU violation, not sanctioning them falls under the enforcement discretion caveat.

Question from User:Beyond My Ken

  2. Do you believe that SPI is the only legitimate mechanism for determining the nature of suspicious editors? If so, what do you advise long-term editors with a good feel for behavioral patterns to do about questionable editors when there is no clear candidate for who the master might be?
    You caught me at a bad time BMK, I'm having to "borrow" wifi from Starbucks at the airport, and I'm not sure when I will connect again. I wouldn't say it's the only mechanism, since socks can be blocked per WP:DUCK all the time, however for all intents and purposes SPI is the document management system for sockpuppetry. Having said that If you are suspicious of someone and you aren't sure of the master, you can contact a checkuser in private and ask advice. One might be able to match known behaviour to past cases without having to actually run a check (which would then provide evidence to actually run the check). But you can't just ask for one to run a check based on your gut feel that the user in question is suspicious, since checkuser is not for fishing. As they say.

Question from Brustopher

Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on WP:OUTING. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.

  2. User:Foo get's into an edit conflict on Wikipedia with User:Bar, and end up as parties to a large Arbcom case. Soon afterwards on reddit someone going by the username Bar begins posting lots of critical and disparaging threads about Foo. In these threads they claim to be Wikipedia user Bar. The Bar account on Wikipedia is older than the Bar account on reddit by several years, however the Wikipedia account had only really begun active editing a few years after the reddit account had been created. Foo notices these posts and complains on Bar's talk page and ANI. Bar responds by accusing Foo of WP:OUTING and claims that the account might not even be his. Is it OUTING to connect the Bar reddit account with the Bar Wikipedia account?
    I believe I answered this question above.
  4. User:Alice is a party in an Arbcom case. She is browsing the internet one day and decides to google her Wikipedia username. She finds that somebody has uploaded naked photos of another woman to a pornsite and labelled them "Alice of Wikipedia." She looks into the account that has uploaded these files and comes to the conclusion that it is owned by Wikipedia User:Bob, an editor she had clashed with heavily on wiki. In the process she also finds out his real life identity. She emails her evidence to Arbcom. Alice then decides to go to Wikipediocracy's forums, and makes a thread informing them of this porn site account. She asks them if they can guess which Wikipedia editor is behind it, and mentions that she also knows his real life identity. They independently come to the conclusion that it is User:Bob and figure out his real life identity without Alice giving the game away. Alice confirms that this is the case. Nobody in the forum finds it remotely questionable that Bob owns the account in question. In such a situation is it appropriate for Arbcom to pass a finding of fact stating "Alice posted inappropriately to an off-wiki website apparently with the objective of having the participants identify a Wikipedia editor by name." Furthermore is it appropriate for them to then use this supposed violation of WP:OUTING as part of their justification for site banning Alice?
    I believe this is déjà vu.
Facepalm Erm... This was totally meant to be a test of your memory. Yeah that's what it was... Congratulations, you passed! --Brustopher (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Müdigkeit

  2. How many hours per week do you plan to work on the Arbitration Committee?--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't the slightest idea. I'm aware that it takes a lot of time, but I couldn't hazard a guess as to how many hours it will be for me personally.

Questions from Ryk72

Thank you for stepping forward; your commitment to serving the community is greatly appreciated.

Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.

  2. The en.Wikipedia community has been likened to that of a gaol (US:prison), with members of various gangs aggressively supporting each other in disputes, which are policed by trusted inmates. Do you agree with this view? If so, why so? If not, why not? To what extent are the behaviours which lead to this view enabled by AN/I, AE & ArbCom?
    I think that is one of the most rediculius comparisons I have ever heard. There is no requirement to stay on Wikipedia as there is to stay in prison, and if you cut up, you aren't mandated to stay longer, rather shown the door.
  4. Do you believe that our current processes & procedures encourage adversarial methods of dispute resolution? If so, is this a good or bad thing? If bad, what role should ArbCom play in addressing this?
    ArbCom doesn't make policy, and they don't create process. They hear individual cases. At one time I thought that they should do more of that, however that was prior to becoming a functionary, were you do get to see a little side of what they do, which is a lot.
  6. What are the advantages and disadvantages of WP:BOOMERANG? Would you support it's retention, restriction or abolition? Why?
    Boomerang is an essay, so it's someone's opinion, which a lot of people buy into. It can't be abolished or restricted, since it's not policy. It's an invaluable tool for dealing with people that report people to ANI, for example, when they are in fact the problem.
  8. We see regular use of WP:DUCK/WP:SOCK to justify indefinite blocks of new editors entering contentious topic spaces, without those editors being explicitly linked to banned accounts. Is this use justified? If so, why so? If not, why not?
    It is useful to avoid unnecessary beurocracy, when the outcome will be the same. Similar to a SNOW closure in an AfD.
  10. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Remedies, ArbCom implemented a "500/30" limit on edits to the Palestine-Israel (the 3rd topic space in which this remedy has been used). What are the positives & negatives of this remedy as written? Would a more technical/formal implementation (akin to semi-protection) be an improvement? What other improvements, if any, might be made?
    I don't think that there is currently a way to actually other than an edit filter maybe (of which I am not proficient with). Having said that, I think it's a way to keep new good faith editors from unknowingly getting into contentious areas prior to learning the "rules", and to keep out sock puppets. The downside is you can lose a lot of good faith and valid contributions.
  12. A hypothetical editor, involved in a contentious topic space, regularly derails Talk page discussion with personal views on the subject, anecdotes of their off-Wiki involvement in the topic, epistemological first principle reasoning for exclusion of material, "hatting" of discussions, and snide attacks on new editors. Administrators have failed to address this editor's behaviour; WP:AE has failed to address the editor's behaviour. What should be done?
    Is this really hypothetical? I had to look up epistemological first principle reasoning, and I am still not sure what you are getting at.. How did the admins fail? Was it brought to ANI, or is this festering on a minimally watched talk page? I'll say outright that hating discussion on a talk page with snide comments, based on your opinion, is bad form. As for what to do, you could run for administrator, and block the user yourself after suitable warnings (if appropriate, but I haven't seen the degree of snideness you discuss, as this is hypothetical).
  14. Would you be prepared to recuse from 1/3rd of cases, and encourage other Arbs to do likewise, so that each case might be addressed faster, and by fewer Arbs?
    I support anything which results in less work for me. Having said that I would abstain, since recusal suggests that I would not be suitable to hear future cases on the matter. According to my understanding of recusal. Although I wouldn't say this is a change I am going to be championing if I were elected, it's an interesting concept. Some degree of random selection would be necessary, to prevent arbs from picking cases, and filers from picking arbs. Or filing when their preferred (or not preferred) arbs are "sitting" (or not) if you will.

Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Blackmane

  2. This is a hypothetical that is somewhat based on real threads that have occurred on WP:AN and WP:ANI in the past. An editor who self identifies as having a mental disability or disorder has been indefinitely blocked for a variety of violations, take your pick of edit warring, NPA, disruption, CIR, POINT, Godwin's etc, and is now seeking to return to editing. Quite a few members of the community have sought to advise this editor on why they were blocked but struggle to get the editor to understand. I'd like to hear your thoughts about how Wikipedia works with those who suffer from such disorders. This is an open ended, and deliberately vague, question that will no doubt be difficult to answer, but is more for me, and presumably other editors, to get a grasp of your thoughts. Blackmane (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While some degree of leeway/accommodation can be provided to people with disabilities, it does not offer carte blanche to the user, allowing them to continue edit warring, making personal attacks, etc. without action being taken against them. Further, there is no way to determine if the user in question is genuinely disabled, or gaming the system for some reason.

Question from Dcs002

  2. You said something above, "Free speech has never been a right guaranteed to anyone on any WMF project." While I know this to be true, I can't help but feel chills when I hear it in the context of the freest and most massive collection of knowledge the world has ever assembled. You know we can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or verbally abuse or threaten people, or perjure, or instigate criminal behavior. All speech must have limits. However, if you ran things the way you wanted to, could you ever see it as appropriate within WP that we continue to prohibit abusive and disruptive speech, but permit all speech that is not banned as long as it is related to the editor's honest efforts to improve our encyclopedia? That is our de facto situation, but I'm used to more formal academic freedom and the right to respectfully disagree. A lot of worry about nothing? Whaddya think? Dcs002 (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a lot of worry about nothing. A good summary is here, free speech grants you neither freedom of consequence, nor a guaranteed audience. So I don't know why it would give you chills to hear that a private enterprise does not permit one to say whatever they want without fear of retribution. This goes beyond simply yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, for example if I were the vice-president of Coca-Cola, and I went on television saying that Pepsi is the best soft drink, should I expect to keep my job because of free speach. Of course not (I understand how absurd an example this is).
    I am unclear on what you mean by permit all speech that is not banned as long as it is related to the editor's honest efforts to improve the encyclopedia, by definition, all speech that is not "banned" is permitted. Also, you suggest that we aren't allowed to respectfully disagree here, as you are more used to (or is that to say you are more used to respectful disagreement than yelling, screaming, and finger pointing).
Sorry this is so long, but there seems to be a few fundamental misunderstandings, and I am brevity-impaired :( To clarify: Yes, WMF is privately owned, but we present our work product as this free encyclopedia created by ordinary people. Coca Cola is not an all-volunteer organization that invites anyone in the world to modify the flavor of their product. We editors make the product using our own intellect and judgement, not theirs. We are in a murky middle ground, like an academic institution. Non-public colleges and universities must develop policies regarding free speech and academic freedom. It cannot be assumed, nor can it be ignored if they wish to attract and retain quality faculty and foster a true search for knowledge. Academic advancement requires an environment in which radical ideas can be discussed openly and freely. Wikipedia is an academic endeavor. A blunt rejection of free speech in an academic environment gives me chills, moreso because I know it's true.
This is where the right to respectfully disagree comes in - if my disagreement is seen as radical or unpopular, will it be treated fairly? There is no guarantee of that. Right now, as you pointed out, I do not have the right to say anything controversial. "Free speech has never been a right guaranteed to anyone on any WMF project." I have no right to say anything at all. Without those rights, we can only say that we have created an encyclopedia that Jimbo Wales and WMF have not rejected, not one that truly represents a free consensus of this remarkably diverse, worldwide group of talented editors who work for free. We have Jimbo's word that he'll be hands-off. (That hasn't always been the case though.) That does not constitute freedom of speech, nor are there any guarantees of any academic freedom in the future. I think right now the plan upon Jimbo's death is to give the issue to ArbCom. Still no guarantees there. (Are you ready to take on that task of reconstituting WP? It could be your job if Jimbo dies during your term.)
Speech that is not banned might or might not be permitted (my friend who grew up in Franco's Spain will tell you the difference), but it is not free as long as there is no guarantee that it is free. (It's part of the US constitution - anything not prohibited is a right.) I am talking about a starting assumption that all speech and all ideas may be expressed here without fear of sanctions, and then listing the exceptions and limits (e.g., as long as it is related to the editor's honest effort to make a better encyclopedia, as long as it is not abusive or disruptive, etc.). That's as opposed to saying there is no free speech here, but you may say X, Y, and Z, but only in the context of Q, and we might change our minds about that... The default position is freedom, not prohibition. The cartoon you linked assumes I have freedom of speech, which, as you said, I do not. Dcs002 (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Wikimandia

  2. Many editors were unhappy with the results of the recent Neelix fiasco, in which the AC closed the case as soon as Neelix resigned as an admin, despite the fact that many of the issues brought up in the evidence page had nothing whatsoever to do with misuse of administrative tools or even his redirect spam, including building walled gardens and violation of WP guidelines concerning advocacy in editing. This led to accusations of a double standard for admins and regular editors. (If a non-admin had done the same, there could be no such easy dismissal as we don't have tools to resign). Neelix never acknowledged or agreed to stop any of this behavior, simply (eventually) apologized for the redirects only and then later resigned with no further comment. There was significant support for at least a topic ban at the ANI. Do you believe a topic ban or other measure should have been applied in this case?
    I believe that the more we can accomplish without additional bureaucracy and paperwork, the better. He resigned his adminship, is topic banned from creating redirects, and is effectively "retired" (although I don't doubt it will be temporary). If and when he decides to return, his contributions will be under a microscope by everyone who followed the case, both on ArbCom and on AN/I. In light of this I don't see it necessary to ceremoniously hang him from the proverbial yardarms for lousy (to put it mildly) content contributions/article ownership/advocacy as well. A lot of time has been wasted cleaning up his mess, let's try not to waste more if it can be avoided. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix will always exist for public record, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix 2 can always be created if he returns, and continues along the garden path (if you will forgive the pun).
Category