Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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

   Outside of any Fram-related comments, I have not recently commented on unblock discussions. I am aware that receiving appeals from banned users and reviewing functionary-placed blocks is a significant part of the committee's work. I do, however, have considerable experience analyzing complex and contentious discussions (i.e. RfXs), and if elected, I trust that this experience would serve me well when dealing with unblock discussions handled by the committee. Maxim_(talk) 03:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. If you had been a member of the current ArbCom, would you have voted to restore Fram's administrator permissions?

   This question is difficult to answer because I don't have access to the T&S dossier, which may have influenced some arbs' decisions. Nonetheless, I'll indulge the what-if scenario. Given what is available on-wiki and without the benefit of knowing the outcome of the subsequent RfA, I would have voted to restore Fram's +sysop, with the hope that a status quo ante would have been in the best out of many less-than-ideal decisions. Maxim_(talk) 04:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Presently, there is no decision, whether by the community or the committee, to authorize discretionary sanctions with regards to paid editing. At first glance, existing enforcement methods seem adequate, as paid editing is not a topic area per se, compared to, e.g. American politics, Eastern Europe, etc. For what it's worth, paid editing isn't prohibited although, broadly speaking, it's not exactly held in high regard. Maxim_(talk) 04:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

   The current MediaWiki 2FA extension has numerous deficiencies, best highlighted by Risker here. At this point, I don't believe that the committee should be endorsing universal 2FA adoption. The use of good online security practices, proper password hygiene, and so on, are good sense for any editor. Maxim_(talk) 04:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Just to get this out of the way, since I'm sure it'll come up: Fred Bauder. Just whatever comment you have about your actions in that matter.

   It probably did more good than bad. With the desysop a foregone conclusion, it defused the situation on ANI (there was discussion of a community ban) and pushed the discussion to arbcom where it could be dispassionately considered. I definitely would not have done that were I an arb at the time. I find Euryalus' request reasonable, although the situation with the Fram resysop/desysop was an unfortunate but reasonable exception. Maxim_(talk) 05:01, 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?

   I feel that in a such a situation, there is no "wrong" decision on acceptance. A structured arbitration case and a (relatively) unstructured ANI thread are different approaches to resolving disputes. Some types of disputes (e.g. long-term poor conduct by an administrator) are clearly not well-suited for ANI, whereas relatively minor disagreements between editors could be handled by ANI. The conclusion by the committee to accept was seemingly based on the apparent complexity of the case. There indeed was a lack of prior dispute resolution attempts; perhaps the involved editors didn't think it could be solved by ANI? Another way of thinking would suggest that this case was an example of a dispute didn't fit into the neat boxes of dealing by arbitration or by ANI, which in a way goes back to my original thesis that there was no "wrong" decision the committee could have taken with regards to acceptance. Maxim_(talk) 17:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the banning was a walk-up start and should have been handled at ANI, but the rest has had little effect on either side of what was basically a content dispute. It was a huge time sink and the benefits were minimal because it was almost entirely about content, not conduct, and ArbCom isn't here to look at content. It has also been weaponised against good-faith editors, with a recent attempt to re-litigate it. I hope ArbCom will steer clear of these sorts of cases in the future, unless behavioural problems have proved intractable and unable to be dealt with at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 14 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?

   As my userpage message and reply to Lepricavark suggest, I think we have similar opinions on the matter. A case on Fram's admin conduct was necessary, but it would have been preferable that he was able to actively participate, i.e. not already banned. Maxim_(talk) 17:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Sort of. I would go for something similar to 2a but perhaps explicitly state that it does not preclude further investigation of the matter in an arbitration case that follows established procedures. Maxim_(talk) 21:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you, satisfied. There was later 2e. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Arbcom is unfortunately a necessary evil. More and more disputes are handled by the community (compare ~100 cases per year in 2007 versus ~10 cases per year now), but the disputes that end up at arbcom would almost by definition be especially complex. We are a project that holds transparency as a particularly important value, but so much of the committee's work is not transparent by design. The burnout rate for arbs is quite high, and this past year has been perhaps the most troubling in recent memory for the committee as a whole. The process of being a named party in a case is quite unpleasant. I was a party to an accepted case a year ago; I don't want to repeat that experience any time soon, and I wasn't even a primary player in the case. (The one positive thing I can take away from last year, is that if I am elected an arbitrator, I think it would help me work with the parties, because if anything, I think I'd more empathetic to their situation than I would have been otherwise.) To sum it up, I don't think there's one biggest problem, but a lot of its ills stem from the necessity of having an arbitration committee, as the project would be worse off if we were to abolish it. Maxim_(talk) 17:52, 12 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).

   Not that I can think of. It doesn't solve anything, but merely pushes a problem off until the fixed term block expires. Maxim_(talk) 17:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks, I'm happy with that answer. ϢereSpielChequers 21:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. This was truley statesmanlike, but would you agree that qualities that discourage frank and open discussion and questioning are proabbly less than desirable in a committee member? (To clatrify, I'm taking from your comment I quoted that it's water under the bridge. But the point should perhas be emphasised.)

   We are a project that's arguably built on open discussion, and in principle, we shouldn't discourage that. There are some venues that are a bit more structured (I'm thinking as examples requests for resysoping on WP:BN, crat chats, most arbitration pages) where there could be some friction due to the different style of discussion expected, and there should be a balance struck between keeping on point without discouraging editors from raising concerns and asking questions. (And that diff is an acknowledgment of my not doing a good job of keeping that balance.) Maxim_(talk) 18:11, 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'm not entirely sure what the question asks for, so I'll try to give somewhat of a general statement that hopefully addresses some or of all the points (I don't want to single out any editor and guess their motivations). In an ideal situation, there is always room for dissent within a group, whether it's a wikiproject, arbcom, even bureaucrats. I mention bureaucrats, because we definitely don't see eye to eye as a group, which can be seen from threads on WP:BN or recent crat chats. In the context of Arbcom, it's also important that individual members respect the collective decision once that is made; such an approach should not preclude dissent and disagreement in the process of reaching a decision. Maxim_(talk) 20:54, 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?

   Anyone entrusted with access to confidential information should not be disclosing it to unauthorized parties. It's equally bad, whether it's to someone who's WMF banned or not. That said, it's unreasonable to try to restrict advanced permission holders from participating on criticism sites or interacting off-wiki with whomever they please. The part that would be problematic is misuse of confidential information, and not the association with someone by itself. Maxim_(talk) 18:49, 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?

   We tend to treat editors, roughly speaking, based on the totality of the circumstances. There are some negative behaviors that cannot be reconciled with continued participation in the project (e.g doxxing others), whereas there are some negative behaviors that might not preclude further positive participation. However, once an editor ends up at arbcom, it should apparent that there most likely exists a serious problem that requires the committee's attention. One would hope that there could be a solution that is in the best interests of the project. Maxim_(talk) 19:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked whether you recognised bias. In so far I can discern an answer, can I take it that you don't?

There are perceived biases about any group of users than can be assembled together (and I don't see the benefit of singling out any group in particular). Regardless of such perceived biases, an arbitration decision should be in the best interests of the project. Maxim_(talk) 20:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. I have been wondering recently about the need to maintain a separation of powers between bureaucrats and ARBCOM. Do you feel the concept of separation of powers is relevant here? If so, how?

   Broadly speaking, yes, separation of powers applies. But in a way, it's not different to a sitting arbitrator avoiding closing (or perhaps participating in) a contentious and complex ANI discussion that may end before the committee. I think the big picture here is to avoid reviewing one's own actions. So, if I had ended up participating in a bureaucrat decision that ends up before the committee, I would recuse as an arb. Or, if I had voted to desysop someone and the subsequent RfA goes to a crat chat, I would have recused as a crat. Maxim_(talk) 21:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   As mentioned in my answers to Gerda and Lepricavark, based on the publicly available information and without knowledge of the subsequent RfA, I would not have supported the passing remedy on the removal of Fram's user-rights as I felt that a return to status quo ante would have been the better out of many less-than-ideal possible solutions. Maxim_(talk) 20:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. 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.)

2. Thanks for the answer. Can you pick something other than the Fram case (since I don't have access to private evidence either)?

   Does supporting a passing remedy as a second choice count? For the Rama case, I would have voted as a first choice to admonish and as a second choice to desysop. In such a case, I would hope there is some acknowledgment that the action was outside of established norms. I'm not looking for grovelling, and such an acknowledgment in a way sets a lower bar than acknowledging that the actions were in error. (Arguably the Asoh defense may have put the dispute to rest before an arbitration case, but I digress.) What I would rather look for is a demonstrated pattern of poor judgment. Was there a pattern? Outside of decade-old (!) history, not really; a good contrast to the Rama case is the Enigmaman case, whose findings clearly show a pattern of misuse. I don't find the passed remedy in the Rama case necessarily wrong (either admonishing or desysoping were acceptable), but my preference would be to admonish since the case was effectively over an isolated incident. Maxim_(talk) 02:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [4]. 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?

   I fear that such questioning would invariably end up prying into people's personal lives, and that's something particularly at odds with our established best practices. I supposed one could look at a candidate's editing pattern to try divine future activity levels, but on the other hand, past performance is not indicative of future results. Personally, my expectation is that anyone submitting a candidacy has assessed how much time the job of arbitrator requires, and the submission of such a candidacy should be taken as evidence that the candidate feels they have sufficient free time to devote to the role. Maxim_(talk) 22:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

   An arbitrator should recuse, broadly speaking, if they cannot be, or appear to be, impartial to a case. Such a decision should be made on a case-by-case basis; "any way" is very broad and may include minor/tangential involvement that might not give the appearance of partiality. Maxim_(talk) 23:01, 14 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?

   The arbitrators shouldn't be there to be inflexible mandarins (I first wrote "bureaucrats" but that wouldn't work well here...). While ideally cases should be completed in a timely manner, we should be reasonably flexible to allow parties to a case to respond to claims made about them. Maxim_(talk) 23:01, 14 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?

   Similarly to the question right above, if an arbitrator finds further diffs/makes further claims subsequent to a review of the evidence, the named party should have a reasonable opportunity to respond. I would rather have a decision that took longer to make but was more in the best interests of the project, than a rushed decision that was not as much in the best interests of the project. Maxim_(talk) 23:01, 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?

   I'd probably be doing what I'm doing already, or perhaps something in addition to that. So, to be specific, right now I do mostly cratting, global renaming, monitoring my watchlist, and other maintenance tasks. Maxim_(talk) 23:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. You've answered several questions about Fram. As a 'crat, you were also involved with issues about administrators (Floquenbeam and Bishonen) who faced questions about possibly being desysopped by WMF, as well as another 'crat (WJBscribe) who took actions in this regard. Please comment on your views about your own role as a 'crat at the time, as well as any changes of opinion you might perhaps have had since then. Thanks.

   I accept I may end up having to clarify or expand my response here, as the question seems to me somewhat open-ended. I only became seriously involved 16 days after the initial ban/desysop to try to keep some level of détente while the matter was being sorted out between the WMF, Arbcom, and the community. I wasn't as involved with the issues involving Floquenbeam and Bishonen. I don't think I had as big of a role in the whole Fram saga as I may appear to have: what can one bureaucrat do with a mess this big, especially given how much it is/was an arbcom matter? Maxim_(talk) 23:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. If I remember correctly, you reversed an action WJBscribe had taken. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   In my first attempt to answer, I ended up inadvertently paraphrasing my comment on the arbitration case here. That sums up my motivation in reversing WJBscribe's action. I had hoped that the reversal may have kept things from inflaming more. Administrators, for example, can view deleted revisions, without that event being logged; the WMF could have been tempted themselves to reverse WJBscribe's actions. I figured it was better for me to make a potentially divisive action, as opposed to having the WMF intervene again, hence the attempt to keep the existing level of détente. In terms of changes of opinion... ask me again in maybe 6–12 months. The events are an unpleasant recent memory to me. The whole debacle could have been avoided by the WMF not stepping all over our community-based processes for dealing with behavioral concerns. Maxim_(talk) 00:11, 15 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?