Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

2. When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?

   I don't see how the terms of discretionary sanctions would work in this case. DS is intended to handle cases where the article is afflicted with contentious & strife-torn editing. Where paid editing harms Wikipedia is when articles are white-washed or otherwise their content harmed because one or more editors are paid to subvert Wikipedia guidelines. -- llywrch (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?

   At this time, I don't think two-factor authentication is called for. However, I am open to persuasion; since I made my first explorations on the Internet back in the early 90s security has become a far more serious matter, & something as cumbersome as two-factor authentication may be required, at least for accounts with advanced permissions. But to answer your question, it's not the duty of the ArbCom to issue opinions or endorsements beyond settling disputes. Endorsing something like two-factor authentication is best left to the community to decide, thru the usual process of a RfC & forming a consensus. -- llywrch (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. What do you think about the decision to accept Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort? In particular, considering the lack of prior dispute resolution attempts or attempt to use ANI to deal with the behavioural issues. Why or why not?

   While I believe all disputes reaching the ArbCom should have gone thru the gauntlet of WP:AN/I, this is not a hard rule. The benefit of having a dispute discussed in the latter forum is the potential of wider community input, both for evidence & for policy. And having community involvement -- or at least the opportunity of that involvement -- is why disputes should be handled on Wikipedia, not by employees of the Foundation who may have no sense of community norms. In this ArbCom case, some 29 uninvolved Wikipedians provided input of one form or another, which is comparable to what a discussion in WP:AN/I would draw. So in review I have no problem with this case being accepted, but with a caveat: had fewer outside individuals provided input -- say a quarter of the actual number or less -- I'd be reluctant to accept the case.

   As a PS, I'll note that I expect the day to eventually come when the ArbCom is forced to accept disputes based on content. -- llywrch (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PSS -- Please note that I wrote "is forced to accept", not "should". Nevertheless, I may still be wrong about this. -- llywrch (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?

   I'm not sure I'd be proud of participating in any discussion concerning blocking/unblocking someone. The point where someone can be saved from being blocked would come at an earlier stage, where that person is attempting to climb the Reichstag in a Spider-Man suit. When the matter reaches, say WP:AN/I, that person has already made the decision to leave the project, whether they know it themself. That is why I tend to stay away from those discussions, & haven't participated in one for 10 years: about the only positive contribution one can make is to make the experience swift & painless. -- llywrch (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. If you had been an arb then, what might you have replied, and which of the remedies under 2 would you have supported?

   I'd have likely agreed with you.

   Like many on en.wikipedia, I fiercely believe that T&S way overstepped their remit in their actions against Fram. What is worse is that their action effectively poisoned any chance to handle any possible issues concerning Fram. There have been allegations Fram was heavy-handed in doing what they thought was right. (I don't know if they are true; the one time Fram & I disagreed over an issue, it was clear they felt passionately for their belief, yet I never felt threatened or harassed by Fram.) Now these allegations can never be objectively examined. Our instinctual response will be to protect Fram because he is one of us, much as you'd protect a sibling from a bully, even if that sibling had just scribbled all over pages in your favorite book. Or to put him under more scrutiny in an attempt to compensate because of this instinctual response. So I can't say which remedy I would have picked. -- llywrch (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. When I wrote the comment, remedy 2a was available, - could that have been for you?

   Yes, following the principle that when an injustice has occurred the victim should be made whole.

   That said, I do understand the reasoning the ArbCom gave for the choice they made. And I think Fram did the honorable thing when they withdrew from the process for regaining the admin bit, rather than fight for it & risk harming the community. -- llywrch (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Satisfied, thank you, - nice to meet you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?

   As a place where disputes come to die, I don't see ArbCom as having any serious problems. Sometimes ArbCom makes a bad call; it's staffed by humans, & this is bound to happen. The solution then is to define how & why that is a bad call, then form a consensus to overcome it. (Yes, it is often hard to form a consensus, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't try. Sometimes people oppose a consensus for the simple reason no one listens to them.)

   That said, there is a serious problem in Wikipedia: there is a need for leadership & ArbCom was not intended to fill this role. Nor should it do so. Jimbo ain't doing it, & his refusal to do so it allowing Wikipedia to drift. I could ramble on what this person would do, & how it would work, etc., but I feel either people accept there is a need for such a person or deny the need, & getting to the point of creating a consensus for it is needed before any effort to define this position is worth doing. -- llywrch (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Addendum. The more I think about it, the less I like the word "leader". Wikipedia is known for being something created by group of self-directed people, & a leader per se is not what we need. Better words would be "head mentor" or "coach": someone who would step in & help various users in simple but effective ways when they needed a bit of help. The community fails at providing this support way too often because, to be honest, even when we're here editing we're not really interacting. It takes an effort to actually see if one of our colleagues needs attention. It's way too easy to enter Wikipedia, improve an article or two, maybe respond to a comment or review some edits, yet fail to notice a newbie is caught in the trap of some troll or look for the hints a veteran editor is approaching that critical point where either she/he needs to step back from Wikipedia for a while or get into a lame but disastrous edit war over whether one writes "AD 2017" or "2017 AD". -- llywrch (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Are there any circumstances where you would think it acceptable to give an editor a fixed term block without telling them why or what you expect them to desist from when they return? (Yes, this is a Fram related question).

   No.

2. Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?

   As a general practice, I would expect that. However, sometimes it is not feasible. If you look at the usernames of those running against me for the 11 open slots in the ArbCom, you will see many who participate in countless discussions; they are not shy about sharing their opinions, & the discussions would be less successful if they did not. Or were the T&S department of the Foundation, either as a group or individually, to be involved in a case brought before the ArbCom, there might not be a case because the entire ArbCom would need to recuse themselves!

   What I would expect is that if an Arbitrator was involved in some way with a case yet did not recuse her or himself, that Arbitrator would explain why she or he didn't. Maybe there is a good rationale. Nevertheless, the goal in any case would be to provide a fair judgment that the community supports. -- llywrch (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. Ought the persons named in a case be given sufficient time to answer charges made by others, rather than have each be given the same time limits?

   Limits have been established in order to minimize the text Arbitrators have to read & determine a decision on. If one party needs more time to respond to some statement, a reasonable request ought to be honored. -- llywrch (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6. When an arbitrator proffers specific evidence on their own, ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence" as though it were timely presented, with the same time allowed for such a response?

   Common sense & the principle of fairness would dictate so. Is there a specific case where this happened that concerns you? -- llywrch (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. What are your thoughts about functionaries and other advanced permission holders discussing Wikipedia and other Wikimedians (in otherwise good standing) with WMF banned editors, specifically those who have a history of doxing and harassment?

   I can only imagine two cases where functionaries & other Wikipedians with advanced permissions would be discussing Wikipedia with the people you describe:
   1. On certain Websites That Shall Not Be Named; or
   2. Privately with the goal of helping the person change their behavior in order to return to Wikipedia

   In the first case, all of the interactions are visible & public, & I can't make a blanket judgment on communicating with others at those websites. I've lurked at one of them, on & off, over the years. In the second case, that should be encouraged. Banning people for whatever reason is not a punishment, just an admission we can't convince that person to play nice with the rest of us, & if that person is willing to change their behavior, that person should be allowed back.

   That said, it's apparent that people will gossip, especially if they have been long-time Wikifriends despite being banned. Much of it will be harmless. My opinion is that as long as it doesn't cause a problem, I'm not going to look for it. (Following the advice of the emperor Trajan to the Younger Pliny about how to handle those pesky Christians.) But if it is a problem, I believe the person holding the advanced permissions runs the risk of losing them. -- llywrch (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. There have been occasional, some might say frequent instances, of a perceived bias in the way that prolific content creators are treated compared to members of the community who support the en-WP in other ways. Is this something you recognise? When these contributors end up at AC - how should they be treated?

   Funny, as someone who has focused his efforts on creating content, I always thought the programmers got the better deal around here. Maybe it's a case of thinking the grass is always greener on the other side.

   It's undeniable that some volunteers here are treated differently than others; let's cut to the chase & call them by their most common term, the Unblockables. However, my sense is that membership not based on being a prolific content creator, but how prominent of a social profile a Wikipedian has, how many other Wikipedians that person knows. One can be a prolific content creator, yet if that volunteer simply focuses on writing & improving articles, never otherwise drawing attention to her/himself, they will have no improved status. On the other hand, if that volunteer spends just as much time on the Dramah Boards or other social hubs, takes the time to socially interact with others, that Wikipedian will be given a lot more leeway to their behavior. (At least that's how it appears to me, & I'll admit when it comes to social skills, mine do not place me in the top 50% of Wikipedians. Some days I'm convinced my 11 year-old daughter is more socially adept than me.)

   However one isolates the "Unblockables" from the rest of us, handling a dispute with one will always be difficult for the average Wikipedian; due to the culture, they will always enjoy the benefit of the doubt. It's not right but it happens, & often without the rest of us realizing it is happening. I don't know how to avoid it, either; we're dealing with human nature here, & clever people -- who are in evidence here on Wikipedia -- will always find a way to exploit this to their benefit. The only advice I can give on this matter is that anyone who initiates a case in ArbCom against an "Unblockable" needs to prepare their case carefully & fully ahead of time. Make it as strong as possible, & keep your temper because people will assume without thinking that you are at fault here -- not the "Unblockable." -- llywrch (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. How would you contextualise Peacemaker67's question on the 2018 GWE arbitration case with the more recent suggestion by one sitting arbitrator, who advised Peacemaker...Be careful that MILHIST doesn't become a place where that groupthink crowds out those who genuinely disagree, and another that MILHIST was counsel[ed]...to bear in mind that it does risk becoming a walled garden?

   I don't know if this answers your question, but I am bothered by the use of words like "walled garden" & "groupthink". The first has a specific connotation on Wikipedia, denoting one or a group of articles that have no links to other Wikipedia articles in order to hide their content from other volunteers, & is usually done to insert content that violates WP:NPOV. Both are examples of the words that discount the other party's message thus halting conversation. There clearly is a faction at MILHIST that disagrees with part or all of this decision, & they deserve to be heard. However, I believe that the effect of these words was not intended. I base this on the context of the those words, & because I prefer to assume good faith. I must also admit that I have often fumbled for the right word, only to find I grabbed the wrong one. -- llywrch (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. How do you pronounce your username?

   Incorrectly. ;-)

2. Were there any votes in the last few years which you would have voted against what turned out to be the majority decision? If so, which, and why?

   I mentioned the Fram case above, & I believe I explained why. -- llywrch (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. If the answer to the above is no, how would you have voted on certain remedies that split the current committee? Feel free to pick your own remedies; otherwise you can also choose from these: [1], [2], [3]. (Feel free to answer this question as well even if the answer to the above is "yes", although it likely won't be necessary.)

   I'm still working on understanding the GWE case. -- llywrch (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6. I'm afraid that didn't answer my question. Given this proposed remedy: "2) The behaviour shown in the case materials falls below the standards expected for an administrator. Accordingly, the committee takes over the decision to remove Fram's administrator tools. They may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship." Would you have supported it? If not having the private evidence makes this question unanswerable, feel free to pick one of the other remedies (or any contentious vote, really, e.g. whether or not to accept this case request).

   I'm sorry, I thought it was clear from my answer to Gerda.

   As you note, the ArbCom decided in the Fram case to remove his admin bit. I would have given it back based on the principle that when an injustice has occurred the victim should be made whole. (I guess my point got muddled when I acknowledged that both the ArbCom & Fram took actions that dealt with the issue of keeping the community whole; not everyone on en.wikipedia held Fram blameless in this, & their opinions deserve respect.)

   Of the 3 cases you list in your second question, one was the Fram case (which I had already opined on), the second was the Rama case (which I wouldn't disagree with the ruling made), & the third was the GWE case (which I am still reviewing in order to answer Peacemaker67 & SN54129, & at this writing can't say if I concur or dissent from how the ArbCom ruled). -- llywrch (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8. There's a case request today. [4] Would you accept it? (Alternatively, if you've understood the GWE case, an opinion for that should be just as good.)

   I've been watching this dispute over Portals grow in bitterness. I don't know how it could not be accepted. This is a dispute that needs to come to an end, & that's the ArbCom's job. -- llywrch (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [5]. in which I concldued that "A practical recommendation for Wikipedia in particular, and for other communities with collegiate courts in general, is that when electing members to their dispute resolution bodies, those communities would do well to pay attention to how much time the prospective future judges can devote to this volunteering task." In other words, may Arbitrators become inactive due to real world reasons (family, job) and this is not an exception but a rule, repeated time and again throughout ArbCom history. Do you think there is any practical way to deal with this, such as, for example, asking Arbitrators to obligatorily describe, in their election process, how they plan to ensure they have sufficient free time to devote to this activity?

   Unfortunately, families & children have a way of cutting into the time one can spend on Wikipedia, as shown by my comment on this edit. And my own ebb & flow of edits were caused in part by events in my family: for example you can see a downturn in the number of edits I made about the time my mother-in-law died in September 2008. (I suspect one reason women are underrepresented here is that they are more often than not the primary caregiver, on top of also needing to work full time -- they have little time to edit Wikipedia. I say that despite having changed most of the diapers in our family.) Nevertheless, I'm comfortable saying that long-time contributors -- IMHO, anyone who has contributed regularly for 10 years or more -- have reached a stage where they have found an equilibrium between the needs of their off-Wiki life and the time they donate to Wikipedia. Incidentally, these are the same people who have the necessary experience to serve effectively on the ArbCom. So while you raise a valid concern, I'm confident there are at least 11 people in this election who will find sufficient free time to serve effectively. -- llywrch (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. In User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates, she says "Know what you'll do if you don't win a seat. This is an important test. Will you continue participating in the building of the encyclopedia? In what areas do you plan on working? Some people have considerable difficulty resuming normal editing life after an unsuccessful run." What will you do if you're not elected?

   This might harm my chances, but I've already accepted that I probably won't win a seat; as the author of one Election Guide put it, there are a lot of great candidates & many people might consider me only a good one. (And I'm not sure that being elected to the ArbCom would be considered a "win"; it involves a lot of work, lots of opportunities to make enemies of people one actually admires, & lots of reasons for my wife & kids to want me off the computer.) In any case, I have lots to do on Wikipedia. I have a GA review to finish -- which I promise to do whether I'm elected or not. I spent hours last Sunday trying to determine if Jushur is the correct name of the first post-diluvian king in Sumer, & I'm still not certain. (My sources state otherwise, as I stated on the talk page.) I need to find a reliable source with the answer. There are many other articles needing work. In short, I'll continue doing what I've been doing for the last 17 years. -- llywrch (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Apologies for late question. There has always been a lot of complaints about lack of communication and transparency with regards to the committee. While this issue is not new, it has never really been adequately addressed, aside from the ever presented hackneyed promises during election time. The complaints have been particularly vociferous recently. Please see this proposal and express your opinion on it. Would you support something like it (even if not exactly in this form) when on ArbCom?

   No problem about when to ask this. I'll be happy to answer questions as late into the election as I'm allowed.

   As for your proposal, I believe this is roughly what The Signpost does in every issue. However, comparing this month's article with what cases they happen to be handling this moment, providing more information than The Signpost currently does -- specifically on proposed amendments to previous decisions, enforcement requests -- wouldn't hurt. (By this, I mean a regular report; I'm not expecting the staff of The Signpost to do this.) I am all for transparency.

   That said, your proposal brings up an important issue: one problem the English-language Wikipedia isn't so much transparency, as it is a lack of timely information. Those who are in the center of activity -- while this includes members of the ArbCom, it includes many more -- may be unaware of just how easily it is for the average Wikipedian to be unaware of major events that might effect them. It is, after all, only a limited part of the lives of most members; but even if they are online, active in their preferred corner of Wikipedia, there is no simple way for them to know of critical events in real time that they need to be aware of. As an example, I only learned of the ArbCom elections some years after the voting was complete, & the results announced; I knew well that they happened every year, but the exact date of the elections is easily lost in the flood of off-Wiki events. And I consider myself as an active contributor who makes an effort to stay informed. So to repeat myself, the ArbCom should make an effort to actively reach out & keep Wikipedians informed. (At least gain access to that top part of the page where the Foundation posts its news & announcements to broadcast information about the annual elections, just to voice my unrelated gripe.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Another late question, I'm afraid. Is it reasonable to expect Arbitrators to be swift to respond to enquiries? I ask this because your userspace has the tag that reads in part "Llywrch is busy in real life ... and may not respond swiftly to queries. I may also fail to promptly respond to emails."

   It depends on your definition of "swift". A few months ago I responded to a question on a Talk Page several years after it had been posted, which obviously would not work for ArbCom business. The other day I managed to answer a question here in under 5 minutes, but I doubt I could keep that up on a sustained basis. Obviously everyone wants an answer ASAP, but work & family (as well as some time to scrounge up the information to base a useful answer on) will always pose a challenge to making a prompt reply. The teachers at the schools my daughters attend state they will respond to email within 24 hours; I think that is a reasonable time frame to expect a response, although sooner than this is preferable. -- llywrch (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late questions, but thank you for standing.

2. What do you believe is the most significant change in the Wikipedia community since you began editing in 2002?

   A loss of optimism.

   Every time I return to essays or email exchanges from the earlier years, I am struck by how everyone thought that Wikipedia could only improve, not only become the best encyclopedia possible (in terms of quality & extent of coverage), but even spearhead the movement to provide information free of restrictive licenses & paywalls. There was a sense of excitement about being part of something much bigger than just a website. Now that optimism & excitement has largely sublimated, replaced by either a grim determination to provide information or a cynical exploitation of Wikipedia to further ones career.

   I don't know how this happened; maybe I'm idealizing the earliest days to some degree, despite knowing much is visibly better than those early days. (For example, the notorious problematic members we struggled to deal with 17 years ago would today be banned permanently within a few hours; material for content is much easier to find; the servers supporting Wikipedia are far more robust than 17 years ago.) Nevertheless, I see far too often contemporary discussions framed not in terms of "it's going to get better", but in terms of "let's keep things from getting worse". -- llywrch (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. What do you think is the greatest challenge to the Wikipedia community today?

   There are many things I could mention, but I'm going to discuss one I suspect few would choose. It's the banal saying I see repeated time & again here: "Wikipedia works in practice, but not in theory". (Sometimes also phrased "Wikipedia doesn't work in theory, but only in practice.")

   I'll admit that this saying had its use at one point, being only relatively wrong, in that it jolted skeptics into the possibility that Wikipedia might be a reliable reference source. But those days are long past. A few moments spent in thought will show that this statement is not only nonsensical, it promotes an obscurantist & mystical concept of Wikipedia, as if somewhere in the Wiki software the function contribute_useful_content() exists. If a theory does not adequately explain phenomena, then it is discarded. Once people embraced the theory that the sun revolved around the earth; over time more careful observations have shown this theory did not explain celestial phenomena correctly, so that theory was replaced with one that the earth revolves around the sun. Moreover, no one has defined which theory predicts Wikipedia should not work. Was it "Creativity only flourishes when people are allowed to be selfish"? If so, I must report that theory was discredited long before anyone even imagined anything resembling Wikipedia.

   Now if we were to propose another theory, it might actually provide some insights as to how Wikipedia works. Say for example, "If one attracts enough people interested in learning (call them nerds, wonks, mavens, etc.) to a website, it will produce something useful", or "The open-source model can be usefully applied to knowledge". One can then create falsifiable tests to confirm this theory, & from this find ways to encourage the growth & quality of Wikipedia. This obviously would be a good thing. However, too many people depend on the banal & obscurantist saying to be true to pay their bills. As long as we cannot know how Wikipedia works, the effectiveness of a given job cannot be measured, & their iron rice bowls are safe. And people who have no direct experience with Wikipedia can be paid to travel around the world to give empty speeches in glitzy surroundings about how practice trumps an unstated but fallacious theory. This diverts money that could have gone to nurture & further improve Wikipedia, used for activities such as providing training for volunteers in copyright law, defamatory speech, research skills, or even fund access to information. While Wikipedia has survived intervention from the Foundation, & seems to flourish best when the Foundation practices a laissez-faire approach, eventually a policy of benign neglect will harm Wikipedia. All because too many people are content to repeat "Wikipedia works in practice, but not in theory." -- llywrch (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I realize these questions are related; feel free to merge your answers if it makes it easier for you. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Which of the past/current ArbCom judges is the closest to your views how the ArbCom should work like? Why?

   Hmm. I haven't thought about it.

4. Which of the past/current ArbCom judges were the worst in your opinion? Why?

   Hmm. I haven't thought about it.

6. Which is the best written article in English wikipedia in your opinion?

   Hmm. I haven't thought about it.

8. Do you think English wikipedia has enough articles or there should much more of them or a large part of them should be deleted (I realize there should be new articles created in situations like a new MP or mayor is elected or there appears a new popular technology etc.)?

   Mu

10. What do you think about each article update be required to be reviewed by an admin in order to be published in English wikipedia?

    It's impractical.

12. What do you think about obligatory revealing the real name (at least the given name and the first letter of the last name), gender, date of birth, photo, education (level and path) and profession of each of the ArbCom candidates?

    I would leave Wikipedia if that were implemented.

14. What do you think about required payment of let's say 100 USD when creating a new wikipedia account in order to decrease the number of people having multiple accounts? This money could be given back after performing 100 edits. Of course anonymous updates would be forbidden.

    I would never have joined Wikipedia if that were implemented

16. What is your view on Israel? Should the Jews control the entire Israel territory including all the Palestinian territory or excluding the Palestinian territory or should all this land be controlled by Arabs?

    I see no benefit answering that question.

18. What is the most serious threat to human existence in the nearest century in your opinion?

    Hmm. I haven't thought about it.

20. In your opinion, what actions should we take to stop the climate change? Or maybe we should do nothing?

    Hmm. I haven't thought about it.

22. What's your religion? If you believe in God, how important is he for you? If you believe in God, do you believe literally in everything what's written in the Bible/ Quran or other religious book? If you're an atheist, which book is the best source of wisdom for you?

    I see no benefit answering that question.

24. Which of the following sexual behaviors are normal in your opinion: sex before marriage, anal sex, oral sex, homosexuality, polygamy, zoophilia, necrophilia, incest, rape, pedophilia?

    Hmm. I haven't thought about it.

26. Do you think any animals might be more intelligent than the humans?

    Yes.

2. Some of the most important decisions by arbitrators are whether to accept or decline cases. What principles will you follow on voting on whether to accept cases that may be within the scope of arbitration, as opposed to declining the cases and leaving them for the community?

   An important criterion is how divisive the dispute is. After all, ArbCom is where disputes go to end, not to promulgate policy, or to punish volunteers. On the other hand, WP:AN/I has come to be the place where problematic volunteers are dealt with, so any issue one that forum can handle should go there first, & any decision that forum has made should not be lightly overruled. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. Do you think that the initial T&S action in banning Fram was a valid exercise of responsibility by Trust and Safety, a completely unjustified overreach by T&S, or something in between, such as an over-reaction by T&S to an existing weakness in the English Wikipedia's sanctions regime?

   I've been critical of that action, so it might come as a surprise that I believe there are cases where T&S properly should intervene in a project's governance process. These are three in number: where no process exists, that the process is dysfunctional, & that something needs to be done immediately & therefore issues an interim action to address the problem that is in force only until the project's governance process issues its decision.

   Nevertheless in any of these cases, I believe T&S must explain why it intervened in the specific case. It did not. (I honestly believe that had T&S furnished a rationale composed to address specifically the Fram case, the outrage would have been a magnitude less.) Beyond the unreasonable assertion that they did so "because we have the power", they provided no justification for this action, & provided even that only after repeated demands from the community. Since I am not part of T&S, am not privy to their discussion, & have no idea what the PTB at the Foundation have told T&S what they expect them to do, I can't even say in good faith what their intent was. Therefore, lack information from T&S forces me to conclude it was an unjustified overreach. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6. In recent years the ArbCom has almost always been significantly late in issuing proposed decisions. The current PIA4 case is an example. Do you propose any action to reduce these delays, such as either shortening the delay between closing of the workshop and posting of the proposed decision, or providing a longer target date?

   Typically projects, such as issuing decisions, fail to meet deadlines because the work involved was underestimated; beyond this, because I am not & never have been a member of ArbCom, it is not productive for me to answer. However, there are a number of people running for a seat who have experience on this committee; I would rely on them to make suggestions & persuading the rest of us to follow them. (On different matters, of course, I do not plan to be as eager to listen to them.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?

   Let me start with two data points:
   *My first encounter with someone trying to profit from Wikipedia content was back in 2006, when a consultant for Lost tried to slip a fictitious article into Wikipedia to promote that program.
   *Of all of the people involved in making Wikipedia work, those who actually create & maintain the content -- the reason Wikipedia is one of the top 10 websites by any measure -- are the only ones who make no money from it. In some cases, they spend money out of their own pockets to provide content for Wikipedia (e.g., buying books or articles).
   Yes, there is the "Wikipedian-in-Residence program, but it only aids a small share of all regular contributors, & survives despite the Foundation.

   So when I see someone raise the matter of "paid editing", I tend to react before I think. I want the group of people who are most important for Wikipedia's success to benefit somehow from all of their work beyond an occasional impersonal thanks or a t-shirt. However, there are people who refuse to acknowledge that Wikipedia editors need to eat & pay bills too.

   Having admitted to that bias, I will also admit that there is a problem with self-serving people attempting to exploit Wikipedia's position as one of the 10 top websites to promote individuals or points of view. This is done not only in exchange for money, but also out of ideological beliefs. (The earliest attempts to subvert Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy were by followers of Lyndon LaRouche, not for money or even out of religious beliefs. Cults have long been a problem for Wikipedia.) So in my personal opinion, the problem should not be framed in terms of "paid editing" -- whether disclosed or not -- but in terms of conflict of interest, an idea that is intuitive even to people who aren't familiar with Wikipedia standards & policies. And since there is established policy about editors who have a conflict of interest, I have no problem enforcing it. And the only reason to intentionally hide the fact one is being paid to edit, IMHO, is to also hide a conflict of interest. -- llywrch (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]