I see you have not used block tool in the past 5 years, although you are busy, do you have any other reason about it? Hhkohh (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, blocking is sometimes necessary, despite nearly always being misunderstood by the blocked user.
You mention you wish to re-establish civility as a central policy. What role do you envisage the Arbitration Committee taking on with regards to civility enforcement - would you encourage more case requests being placed where civility issues are a concern, do you see a significant number of problems which can be traced to failures in civility and do you envisage the Arbitration Committee forming new policy with regards to civility ? Nick (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Civility is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, and for good reasons. Cases should be taken when incivility is being used as tactic or strategy to control content or participation in the project. Increased civility may result in more inclusion of diverse viewpoints in our content. For example, suggestions such as "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one." are unlikely to make women feel welcome.
In what ways, if any, do you believe the role and responsibilities of the Arbitration Committee have changed since your previous term on it? Do you expect to do work similar to your previous term, or do you expect that it will be a different experience? Mz7 (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect a much different experience. I would continue to spend significant time trying to figure out why people are doing whatever is being complained of. If people are rude, it is because it works.
Regarding your desire to re-establish civility as a central policy – Have you seen this Request for Comment before you read my question? I'm looking forward to seeing your opinion posted to that RfC. wbm1058 (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I second this comment: "*Oppose as redundant to WP:Civility. The policy already prohibits gross profanity, rudeness, harassment and belittling other editors. Telling editors to "fuck off" falls cleanly within these prohibitions, and can be dealt with accordingly. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)"[reply]
Hi Fred. Since you're running on a civility platform, could you define what "civility" means to you? I'd prefer a philosophical answer to a specific one but please do indicate any civility "lines in the sand" you firmly believe should never be crossed. Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 16:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was wrong of the Athenians to shut Socrates up by forcing to drink hemlock. Wikipedia, at its best, is dialogue. It is better to discuss matters than to engage in aggressive behavior to rid yourself of gadflys. See Apology (Plato)
What do you think about WP:Civil POV pushing as a concept? If there are two editors one of whom is polite to a fault, but rejects fundamental Wikipedia pillars such as WP:RS or WP:V, and there is another who is brusque but is clearly following best practices for writing content and vetting research, would you centralize civility to such an extent that you would marginalize the latter and allow the former wider latitude to politely continue their campaign?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs) 17:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The polite editor who is not following WP:RS or WP:V is sanctionable on that basis. The brusque editor who is violating civility is sanctionable on that basis.
A wall of text is always a problem. I'll try to get to it and see if I can figure out what the point being made is. Well, looked at the whole page some. Difficult. I would have to spend many hours looking though the interactions before I could say anything sensible or appropriate. I think I understand the point being made, I served in the US Navy,: The viciousness which may occur during the polite conversation of the Wardroom is not somehow more civil than the customary foul language of the crew. However, in civilian life, I have learned to not include motherfucker and cocksucker in every other sentence. We should expect similar discretion during our discussions here. Foul language puts people off, which is why it is used. Thus other editors are encouraged to leave the field. We want other editors IN the field.
Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?
No
If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits?
Probably
Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually out of the US, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow fully reasoned responses to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"?
No, to the first question, Yes, to the second, and Yes, to the third. If I have counted the discrete questions correctly.
Do you believe that your editing of Wikipedia in relation to Donald Trump has been compliant with key Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:BLP? WJBscribe(talk) 23:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of adding some material which violated the Goldwater rule, yes.
I was interested in Nick's multi-part question (currently #2 in the opening section), but your response does not appear to actually answer any part of the question. Would you care to expand on your answer? (I appreciate your answers above might just be holding answers and you might be planning to expand on them anyway.)Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Answer is expanded
Similarly with RegentsPark's question (currently #5). A philosophical answer was requested, but all you gave was what looks like a random statement about a philosopher and did not address the actual question at all. Would you care to expand on your answer? (I appreciate your answers above might just be holding answers and you might be planning to expand on them anyway.)Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a random statement. But expanded.
Looking at your response to Mz7's question (#3), I don't understand what you mean by "If people are rude, it is because it works." Would you care to expand? (I appreciate your answers above might just be holding answers and you might be planning to expand on them anyway.)Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being rude to other editors, constantly asserting that their edits violate some policy, and all the other nasty or "polite" maneuvers editors who want to shape content engage in are legitimate subjects for administrative and arbitrator attention, if their purpose is to prevail in content disputes, prevent information being added, or buff the reputation of the subject. Aggressive editing works. Others, even the most experienced, often give up trying to add information or improve an article.
Your reply to Gerda starts with:--A wall of text is always a problem. As it appears from your above responses, you have such an extremal antipathy to it, that your replies are barely making any sense. Frankly, cases that are presented before the ArbCom (now-a-days) do require a lot of reading and are exceedingly complex to be waved off by one-liners and we can't have the luxury of having someone as an arbitrator, whose communication can't be deciphered. (Unless you do plan to be someone who will chime in at the last moment with minimalistic support/oppose !votes at PD and vanish thereafter until that phase of the next case comes by....) Any comments?Please comment as to the broader locus of the underlying conflict between your coveted hat and exhibited skills.∯WBGconverse 11:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please ask a question that does not assume facts not in evidence
Well, your replies to Nick, RegentsPark and ජපස leads me to believe that there is a complete dearth of comprehension & communication skills, from your end. And, as it appears, I might not be alone. Do you plan to improve your future communication-style and radically improve upon the replies or do you think that they're optimal and you're doing a fine job? I think this coupled with the above ought be enough clues for you.Feel free to answer one of them, since both are on the same issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs) 17:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please ask a question that does not assume facts not in evidence
Which of the sentences, used to frame my second question, is un-evidenced? The first line has been stated to be my perception of your activities, vide leads me to believe. The second line, vide Boing's questions. The third line is the question itself.
You must answer for your own perceptions. I am not able to. They come from inside you, not from me.
Thanks for answering the above questions.∯WBGconverse 14:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How does interesting discussion (at the answer-box to ජපස) qualify as a reply? ∯WBGconverse 14:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other than having the adequate technical skills and knowledge required, and having the level of experience consistent with being granted the role(s), what other specific areas, aspects, skills, and/or traits would you look for and personally want to see in a candidate who is applying to be appointed as a CheckUser or Oversighter? What specific areas (outside of knowledge and skill, experience) in an otherwise-good candidate would cause you to halt, make a complete about-face, and oppose their candidacy for Checkuser or Oversighter if you were to see or find it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshwah (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser requires considerable technical expertise. Personally, my skills are marginal. They are good enough to check results, but someone who routinely does checkuser needs better skills. With respect to oversight, a person need to be able to take responsibility when genuine harm can result from published material. An oversighter needs to be willing to take responsibility for doing that, not engage in endless arguments about how harm might not result, or get their back up because a government agency is making the request, (usually law enforcement or a court). If I understand current practice, there is an oversight committee. I'll have to see how that goes.
In the light of your declared interest in civility, and apparently the treatment of women specifically, can you say something about the circumstances surrounding your retirement from the legal profession? I ask because it seems to me to be an important principle that those acting in a professional capacity - and in this context that means ArbCom - don't merely talk the talk when it comes to upholding professional standards.
The ethics complaint that caused my legal troubles came from a woman who was upset about having to pay child support. It was made up, but she had a friend who supported her testimony, and I lost. I was not disbarred, but with a ruined reputation, there was no point in continuing to try to practice law. The exact complaint was not that I assaulted her but told her over the phone that I was interested in her. Most complaints by woman are honest, but not all.
Interested enough to offer to pay to have sex with her I understand was the allegation. But why do you single out women for special consideration? Surely not all complaints made by men are honest either. EricCorbett 17:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right, I don't remember the details that well. After all, I didn't participate in any such conversation. User:Fred BauderTalk 19:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you don't remember the details that well, [1], [2] if that helps jog your memory. ‑ Iridescent 00:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]