Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Dougweller

Dougweller

I'm tossing my hat in the ring after being asked to run by User:Bishonen. I've had this account for 8 1/2 years and have a dormant account, User:DougWeller which has 2 edits, the first six months before I created this account. If elected, I will comply with the criteria for access to non-public data/

My main article interests are archeology and to some extent history, mainly American and British. For a variety of reasons I also edit in areas where nationalistic pov editing is a problem. I love doing research and fnding good sources to add to articles. My approach to editing articles is basically academic and NPOV, trying to use only the best sources and to display any controversies or differing viewpoints fairly. I've accumulated a decent library on the areas of archaeology and history that interest me and I use JSTOR quite a bit. I'm more of a content improver than an article creator as many of our existing articles are either bad, only present one aspect of a subject, are outdated or just wrong. At the moment I'm hoping to organise some Wikipedia training for members of the regional volunteer archaeology group I belong to in order to recruit more editors interested in editing archaeology articles. I'm retired having worked in a variety of fields including social work (in New York and London), ten years as a University Lecturer and local authority administration, all of which have involved working with people, education and at times mediation.

I've been an Administrator for just over five years. I'm a former ArbCom clerk and a member of OTRS, although I've been inactive there recently. Because I have a huge watchlist I find myself doing quite a bit of vandal blocking and dealing with sockpuppets,

I have no fixed opinions on ArbCom and have not kept up with its actions or any controversies around it. If elected I'll approach the job with an open mind and no preconceptions other than I think it is a vital part of our community and that it needs to have the trust of that community if it is to do its job. Conflict is inevitable in a community such as ours and when other tools fail it's the role of ArbCom to stop it from damaging the community. I think I have the experience and skills to help ArbCom do that job.

• Dougweller (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}

---

Questions from Gamaliel

2. Civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. Do you think we have a problem with civility on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Do you think civility can and should be enforced on Wikipedia as vigorously as the other pillars like NPOV are? Why or why not?

   Civility is clearly a problem on Wikipedia. That’s obvious just from reading ANI and AN occasionally. I’ve always felt pretty strongly about civility and in 1996 led a successful “RFD” (request for discussion) through the Usenet newsgroup procedure to create a moderated archaeology discussion group. Probably as recently as 2 years ago I was a real hard-liner. Now I believe that there are basically two levels at which the problem exists. One is the obvious editor who can’t stop insulting and harassing other editors. Block or ban ‘em. The other is obviously the good content contributors who aren’t as civil as most people would like, who occasionally lose their cool. Part of the community thinks this happens far too often and they should be sanctioned, another part of the community disagrees. And drama ensues. I recently ran across a comment recently about the ratio between productive edits and episodes of incivility that seemed to encapsulate the current debate. The community is split on this and IMHO that is because this is a subjective and cultural conflict which I doubt can be solved by any one simple solution, only contained.

The question doesn't ask what ArbCom should be doing about it - I'm not convinced that if the community can't make up it's mind that ArbCom should be doing that for the community.

2. Wikipedia has a undeniable gender gap in terms of who contributes to Wikipedia and what topics are covered. Do you think this is a significant problem for Wikipedia? Why or why not? What, if anything, can and should the Committee do to address this?

   The gender gap seems to be a significant part of the human condition right now, so not surprisingly it's a problem for Wikipedia. I'd certainly like to see the gap minimised. I don't see the Committee as having a role in solving the problem other than acting in cases where editor conduct is interfering with a solution and the community has been unable to deal with it - such as the current Gender Gap Task Force case.

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Thanks for being ready to offer your service! Last year, I asked 3 questions, this year it's only one: imagine you are an arb, how would you comment in this case? Hint: you don't have to evaluate a whole case, just one request. My so far favourite comment has four words ;)

   I don’t think this should have been brought. At worst it was a technical violation and a simple warning that this was close to the line would have sufficed and served as a basis for action if the editor continued to skirt the line or go over it. That would have saved a lot of IMHO wasted time.

4. I agree that it should not have been brought and caused wasted time, but was it even a technical violation?

   Thanks for asking. On April 26th we have [1] - I see an infobox there, badly formatted. After Andy's edit we have [2] - the same infobox with better formatting (his edit summary said 'fmt' in fact). The obvious intent of the inexperienced editor who added it was to add what we call an infobox but he didn't know how to do that properly. Andy fixed an infobox that already existed. The reason some people might call it a technical breach is probably because at Infobox and Help:Infobox an infobox is defined either as a template or "fixed format table", and what was there before Andy's edit didn't meet those definitions. But our MOS/Infoboxes is more practical and simply calls it "A panel ... that summarises key features of the page's subject" (poaching from User:RexxS) It's the MOS that gives us the essence of an infobox, the other pages are about a way to achieve the goal of actually designing one. MOS:INFOBOX says that templates are generally used, but they aren't the essence of an infobox. For me, that's the sensible way to look at it. There was an infobox before Andy's edit, so not even a technical breach unless you are going to argue that the WP article and the help page trump a guideline, and I'm certainly not going to do that. See User:Dougweller to see my opinion (also poached) of infoboxes. This has made me even less a fan.

6. Makes sense. - Would you rephrase the first answer then, because if it wasn't a technical violation, it can't be "at worst ... a technical violation" and needs no warning?

   I don't think this should have been brought to ArbCom. On April 26th we have [3] - I see an infobox already there, badly formatted. After Andy's edit we have [4] - the same infobox with better formatting (his edit summary said 'fmt'). The obvious intent of the inexperienced editor who added it was to add something looking like what we call an infobox but the editor doesn't seem to have known about infobox templates. Andy's edit fixed an infobox that already existed. Although Infobox and Help:Infobox define an infobox as either as a template or "fixed format table", our guideline at MOS:INFOBOX says that "An infobox template is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section, (in the desktop view) or at the very top of an article (in mobile view), that summarizes key features of the page's subject." It then says "Infoboxes generally use the template software feature." A commmonsense approach is that the essence of an infobox is not the markup that is used but the content, placement and appearance. The template exists for convenience and consistency. So no violation.

Questions from EllenCT

2. Is an editor's refusal or inability to follow the reliable source criteria a behavior issue within the purview of the Arbitration Committee? Why or why not?

   I’d say no. If that’s the only problem, then it should be easy to deal with the editor through the ordinary tools, from dispute resolution to Admin action to community bans. In any case, a decision concerning what is a reliable source is for the community to make, not ArbCom. If the community can’t resolve a problem like this then we’re in trouble.

4. When an editor is accused of misconduct stemming from subtle behavior issues (i.e., POV pushing instead of e.g. edit warring) surrounding a content dispute, is it ever possible to evaluate their conduct without at least attempting to understand and verify the facts and sources of the underlying content dispute? Why or why not?

   ArbCom obviously focusses on behavior, not content. I don’t think it can or should research each source & make determinations based on that research. But if the charges include misrepresentation of sources or cherry picking, shouldn’t we be checking to see if the charge is accurate or not?

6. How would you handle a group of experienced editors who came before you at arbitration if they had willfully and repeatedly removed some but not all of the conclusions of sources (which they admit are of the highest reliability) because they personally disagree with those particular conclusions, when they do not object to the other conclusions from those sources?

   I’d deal with them individually in the first place unless I had evidence they were definitely working together to do this. I’d need evidence concerning the allegation that they were removing some conclusions because they didn’t agree with them.

8. If an editor, when asked to provide an example of what they consider to be a high quality source on a given subject, responds with a source which was sponsored by a commercial organization with a clear conflict of interest, would you expect other editors to refer to that example when other COI issues concerning that editor and the same subject matter arise? Why or why not?

   If other editors see a pattern of COI edits, then I would expect them to refer to all COI edits. I’d prefer to see COI editors, particularly if they are being disruptive, deal with by the community through blocks or topic bans.

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions from Rich Farmbrough

2. Arbitrators do not make policy. How would you handle sweeping remedies which amount to policy change, for example the one that puts all BLP pages and LP mentions under discretionary sanctions?

   Although that was a major change, I don’t see it as a policy change but another and more drastic attempt to make sure that BLP policy is enforced. ArbCom of course needs to ensure that in applying this to remedies that it doesn’t change policy.

4. Arbitrators need a lot of time to do justice to a complex case, with request, evidence, workshop, talk pages, propose decisions, and talk pages all comprising maybe hundreds or thousands of diffs, and up to the equivalent of a short novel of text, not to mention email evidence and discussion, "the other Wiki" and background research. Do you have the time to conscientiously work on these sorts of case?

   I’m retired. I’ll have to cut back a lot of my routine work, both editing and Admin, but that seems pretty normal for Arbs. So looking at how I spend my time, I will simply reallocate most of my Wikipedia time, which I can do. However, if many cases actually mean having to read thousands of diffs, then maybe that’s a problem the committee needs to look at.

6. Because of the workload of Arbitration cases, it has been suggested that they should, in general, be heard by 5 or 7 of the active arbitrators, possibly with one "spare". Would you support a solution like this?

   I don’t think so. It seems to me that it could lead to more problems than it would solve (if it would solve any), with editors complaining about the choice of arbitrators. If we used small groups and lost one or two for any reason then there could be serious problems.

8. Arbitrators need a lot of patience. I was very worried when one Arbitrator said on-wiki he had difficulty keeping his temper. Do you think you have the patience this role requires?

   No problem. I’ve been dealing with difficult and exasperating people on line for many years and have been able to keep my cool.

10. Arbitrators need to be impartial and be seen to be impartial. If you became an arbitrator would you announce your opinion of the outcome of a case, or of an involved party at the request stage? Do you think Arbitrators should have the power to add any party they like to a case?

    No, and yes, Arbitrators should be allowed to add parties if they can justify the addition. I can imagine this occurring as new evidence is brought forward.

12. The Committee must also be seen to be impartial as a whole. If you were elected would you be willing to waive your right to bring cases for the duration of your office? If not why not?

    No. Although I doubt that I would find myself in a circumstance where I felt it necessary to bring a case to the Committee, I’m not going to waive my right. I can’t foresee every possible future scenario.

14. As an Arbitrator you would have access to the Checkuser right. As well as the obvious responsibility of access to private information, the right brings the power (if you have the block bit) to make effectively non-overturnable blocks, by simply labelling them as "checkuser blocks". This is because a block can be based on private information not available to mere administrators. A significant number of checkusers have used this privilege without any private information being relevant. Do you consider this something that you would do or condone, and why?

    I see that another candidate, a Checkuser, denies this has happened. Obviously blocks should be based on some form of evidence.

16. The purpose of the Committee is to resolve disruptive disputes which the community cannot. On ex-Arbitrator commented that "it is not about justice and fairness". Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment, to what extent and why?

    The question seems to boil down to whether justice/fairness can conflict with the Committee’s brief, ie whether protecting Wikipedia can override issues of justice/fairness. I don't have any concrete examples but yeah, I guess that could happen but I can't really answer your question without more knowledge.

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

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. As a break from past years, I am not assigning "points" for the answers, but the answers to the questions, along with other material that I find in my research, will be what my guide is based on. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

2. What originally led you to join Wikipedia? What do you do on the site on a day-to-day basis?

   My interest in archaeology.and related subjects and the realisation that Usenet and web forums were not where I wanted to put my energy. An average day now involves going through a long watchlist of articles, noticeboards, user talk pages, wikiprojects, etc. and dealing with whatever comes up that interests me or otherwise requires my attention. Dealing with vandalism and blocking is routine and fairly quick. Other things such as looking for copyvio, researching for sources to meet citation requests, looking at new sources added, etc can be more time consuming. I also frequently have requests for help which I need to respond to. Then if I have time I have a backlog of articles to improve.

4. What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences?

   I’ve been doing this for years, first on Usenet and then at another forum dealing with history and archaeology, and then Wikipedia. My experience has taught me that patience and politeness (and taking other people seriously) can lead to if not agreement understanding and willingness to work together – not all the time obviously, but enough to make it worthwhile. There are always going to be times when opinions are so polarised that consensus is impossible because people hold their beliefs to be more important than Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly in areas where religion or nationalism are involved. Sometimes you just have to walk away. As Bull Durham said, "Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains. Think about that for a while."

6. Case management has been an issue in many elections, with some cases stalling for weeks with little reply, and others coming to a quickly-written proposed decision that received little support from other arbitrators due to concerns about it being one-sided. What is your familiarity with the arbitration process, and how do you believe cases should be handled? Do you plan to propose any reforms in this regard?

   I recognise that this has happened, especially the time problems. Sometimes this may be simply due to time constraints on some Arbs, other times it’s the sheer size of the case. I like Courcelles’ ideas, particularly having PDs in place 48 hours before voting begins, and being flexible about timelines. Other than that I’m not familiar enough with the inside workings to comment.

8. Several cases in past years have focused on the tension between so-called "subject experts" who know about the intricacies of the subject area and "general editors" who are familiar with the standards that are applied across Wikipedia. What are your thoughts about such issues?

   I haven’t followed those cases, but I know we need both types of editors and we desperately need more subject experts in some fields. Maybe we need the equivalent of the Teahouse but aimed at “subject experts”, with editors familiar with our policies and guidelines giving advice – maybe even a little ‘package’ or FAQ aimed at such editors.

10. In 2014, the English Wikipedia remains among the few projects (if not the only project) where the process for removal of adminship is not community-driven. What are your thoughts about how adminship is reviewed on this project, and do you think this should be changed, or are you happy with the status quo?

    We need something better, the community deserves something better and I’m pleased to see some new ideas coming forward. Hopefully we’ll be able to get something in place within the next few months that will make it easier to get rid of bad Admins, recruit good new Admins and encourage the community to trust its Administrators more.

12. Serving as a functionary (even more so as an arbitrator) often means dealing with unpleasant issues, including but not limited to helping those dealing with doxing and real-world harassment and communicating with WMF about legal issues. In addition to onwiki and offwiki harassment, functionaries have often had false accusations made against themselves, frequently in venues where they are unable to defend themselves or where the accusers are unwilling to listen to reason. What effects would both of these have on your ability to serve as an arbitrator?

    I hope none. I’m experienced with this sort of problem. There are several attack articles about me out there on the web, I’ve had fake FB pages created about me, etc. Some of this has been directly aimed at me as a Wikipedia editor (virtually all of those have been about my editing in areas of archaeology and history). Some has been pretty nasty, even aimed at family. You just have to shrug it off.

14. What is your familiarity with Wikimedia-wide policies, such as the CheckUser policy and the Oversight policy, as well as the Privacy policy? What is your opinion as to how Wikimedia (staff and volunteers) handles private information?

    I’m familiar with the policies. I don’t know enough about how Wikimedia handles private information to comment, sorry. I know we have AUSC and meta:Ombudsman commission but I haven’t been following any of their actions. If I’m elected I’ll bring myself up to speed.

16. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to provide lasting dispute resolution in difficult cases that the community has difficulty resolving. However, of course Wikimedia is a community-driven project. To that end, what are your views regarding what should be handled by the community, and what should be handled by arbitration?

    The more that can be handled by the community the better. ArbCom shouldn’t be seen as an easy option to avoid the community having to deal with a problem. I’ve been following the discussion about getting rid of RfC/U. Some see this as requiring a lowering of the threshold for ArbCom dealing with a problem, but (with the exception of Admin reviews perhaps) I’d rather see better alternative means found for a replacement for RfC/U that doesn’t involve ArbCom. ArbCom is Wikipedia’s heavy artillery and should normally be a last resort when all else fails.

Thank you. Rschen7754 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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, and no. A case can be opened if it’s decided that there is a serious enough problem to investigate and that sanctions may be necessary if the evidence warrants them, but with no presupposition that sanctions will be required. And if after digging into the evidence it turns out that there isn’t anything serious enough to warrant sanctions, it would be nonsense to sanction someone anyway.

4. Do minor sanctions such as limited topic bans require specific findings that each editor named has violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines in that topic area? If an immediately prior WP:AN/I discussion did not show any support for a topic ban, should ArbCom impose one without specific findings of any violation of a policy or guideline?

   Sanctions should never be imposed without a valid reason, no matter how minor or major they are. There may be times when that reason can’t be made public, but it must exist. The same principle applies to your topic ban question, there must be evidence. Complete lack of support at ANI for a topic ban should make the committee think very carefully about imposing one, but if evidence is uncovered that wasn’t available during the ANI discussion I see no reason that lack of support at ANI should stop the committee form issuing a topic ban on the basis of new evidence.

6. Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?

   I can't imagine participating in a case without reading the evidence carefully. Workshop pages, meh. I'm a really, really fast speed reader, so at times I might simply skim them and read carefully anything I found relevant. But my focus would be the evidence.

8. "Stare decisis" has not been the rule for ArbCom decisions. For general rulings and findings, is this position still valid, or ought people be able to rely on a consistent view of policies and guidelines from case to case?

   Obviously consistency is important. No one would trust a Committee that flip-flopped around. But decisions are made in a context which includes not just of policies and guidelines but the actual events of a specific case. Being forced to abide by precedent wouldn’t allow for growth and development and could be a straitjacket.

10. Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?

    It may say it’s simply a non-binding essay but it reflects our policies and guidelines and those are fundamental to ArbCom decisions. So yes, it should be of great value in guiding the work of ArbCom.

12. Many cases directly or indirectly involve biographies. How much weight should the committee give to WP:BLP and related policies in weighing principles, findings and decisions?

    I support the decision putting BLP articles under discretionary sanctions. Our articles can have real life consequences. So BLP and related policies should be given considerable weight, but I wouldn’t know how to quantify it.

14. How would you personally define a "faction" in terms of Wikipedia editors? Is the behaviour of "factions" intrinsically a problem, or are the current policies sufficient to prevent any faction from improperly controlling the tenor of a Wikipedia article? If the committee determines that a "faction" rather than an individual editor is at fault in a behaviour issue, how would you suggest handling such a finding?

    "Agenda-driven faction" or "group of editors with a common purpose"? Different words, different implications. Bad, good? The existence of groups with a common purpose isn’t in itself a problem – working parties, Wikiprojects, etc might be said to be groups of editors with a common practice. However, when groups of editors get together off-Wiki to push a pov, etc, then there is a problem, exemplified by the Eastern European mailing list case where there was a faction “using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate.” We seem to be able to handle such problems but of course there could be unknown factions that can’t be dealt with until evidence shows they exist. In any case, we deal with members individually when it comes to sanctions.

Thank you Collect (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions from Everyking

2. How do you feel about the ArbCom's practice of deciding cases through private deliberation? Would you push for greater transparency, up to the point of holding all discussions on-wiki, so long as sensitive personal information is not revealed? Would you be prepared to make a personal pledge to make all of your own comments in public, unless sensitive personal information is involved?

   I think it's necessary and reasonable for some discussions to be private. I'm a great fan of transparency but it has its limits. There is no way that free and frank discussions can take place on-Wiki. It's the nature of discussion (or should be) that it changes people's minds, that ideas develop and change, etc. This can only happen if the participants can be sure that earlier opinions that they have change can't come back to be used against them. I don't want to see a committee where everyone is constantly considering how what they say might look. And if you are going to withhold sensitive personal information, lack of knowledge about that information can make it impossible for readers to understand a discussion going on between people who are aware of that information. I can imagine participants in a case being hurt by comments that might be important for the discussion but not for the decision, or even comments that were made originally due to lack of information that were later regretted by the person making them. I wish this weren't the case, but it isn't. I can state that I will try to say most of what I have to say on-wiki but I can't commit to make all comments public.

   Everyking (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions from Carrite

2. If you were assigning a letter grade to Arbcom for its work in 2014, what would that grade be? What was the committee's greatest success and their worst mistake?

   I'm sorry Carrite, but I can't answer that question. Running for ArbCom was not something that had occurred to me before last Sunday, and I haven't been following ArbCom enough to answer that. I guess I could read all the 2014 cases but even then I'd miss comments elsewhere, and I simply don't have the time. However, it's probably a good question for me to ask other people, including sitting Arbs, if I should get elected.

4. The Arbcom process is slow, generally running nearly 6 weeks from first case request to final decision. What can be done to speed up this process?

   As I’ve said, I like Courcelles’ suggestion about a more flexible timetable. On the other hand, there can be disadvantages to being too quick. ArbCom decisions can have serious effects on editors and taking enough time to gather evidence, read through it, ponder it and discuss it can’t be a bad thing. I’m a quick reader and a quick learner, but my experience is that I need time to digest material and think it through, and my first impressions can be quite different to my final conclusions. Is six weeks that bad for a complicated case that might end up with editors being banned?

6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?

   Do you mean if the Wish Fairy granted me one wish? A better way of handling disputes. And a way of ensuring our articles are well sourced and cover all aspects of a subject. And ... oh, just one?

Thank you for your answers. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Question(s) from Worm That Turned

2. Hi Dougweller. 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?

   Yes. As indicated above, I’ve had such problems due to other activities on and off Wiki. This won’t be my first rodeo. It’s never nice and I realise that some may come from surprising places, but I think I can handle it. I'll add that I was warned about this in some detail when I was considering whether to run.

Thanks for answering - Good luck Worm^TT(talk) 09:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Question from Tryptofish

2. What is your opinion of User:Tryptofish/Draft B for ArbCom, in terms of transparency, privacy, and whether it should become part of ArbCom procedures? Thanks!

   It could be used as part of any future discussion on communications. In part it contradicts what is written at WP:ARB - that says "we cannot guarantee against public disclosure for a number of reasons, including potential security limitations. Accordingly, you should not disclose sensitive personal information in your communications with us...Once received, your communications may be shared with committee members and – in some limited cases – with third parties to assist in resolving issues or for other purposes." Yours however says "May be published only if permission is given by all non-arbitrator parties, and by a majority of active, unrecused arbitrators." I don't think I can agree to that if I understand it correctly. Certainly security issues could be a good reason to disclose the contents of an email without the permission of the sender and I can accept that there may be other reasons. The key thing in the existing wording is that people are warned that this could happen. That's being open and transparent about the possibility that private correspondence may be shared with others in certain circumstances. I don't understand your emphasis on paraphrasing text. Most of the rest seems ok but needs to be simplified. I'm also wondering if the fact that you say "procedures" means you don't think this should be a guideline rather than a procedure. Certainly some of the material that I think needs to be simplified is actually guideline stuff, eg mentioning "common practice". The bit about emails being sent to the list by arbitrators seems ok except that I can see reasons for dropping the "unrecused" - that would need discussion.

Question from Carcharoth

2. Please take a look at a set of questions I wrote four years ago, based on my first term as an arbitrator. Please pick and answer one or more questions from that list. Provide as much reasoning as needed to allow the electorate to judge how you would respond to these and similar situations you will probably encounter if elected.

   Hi Carcharoth, thanks. Q2. If real life was interfering with my ability to continue voting, eg if I had to go abroad because a relative was dying, I wouldn't expect the case to be held up by my personal problems. I would state that I was inactive and my votes would be struck through. If I came back in time I could vote again. That's all covered by existing procedure. Q.11 isn't covered though. If I was up against a deadline to vote and feeling tired/not fully alert, I'd write out my vote, print it out and see if it made sense. If I wasn't sure, or felt unclear about the evidence and discussion, I'd abstain. Q.12 - not a nice position to be in. Hopefully I'd already have made a reasoned decision, which I'd review again before voting, looking at the arguments made by my colleagues. I might revise my decision, but even if I didn't do that I'd probably something about why I was disagreeing with half the Arbs. As for Qs 4 and 7, I might strongly disagree with another Arb but taking that to the point of being disruptive isn't me, nor would I let disagreement with a clerk get to the point where it caused tension. Q.8 - if I didn't think there was a legitimate reason to recuse, I'd check my judgement by asking the other Arbs - there might be something I was missing or self-denying. Last one, Q 14. The last person to vote shouldn't be rewriting something that's already been voted on. Certainly not in any way that changed the meaning, and even copy-editing might accidentally do that - and certainly couldn't, or shouldn't by that point be vital enough to be messing with. So I wouldn't do either. If you think there's a question I've missed that I should answer, let me know.

Questions from Bazonka

2. Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee?

   No current inolvement. As I said in my statement, I'm trying to organise some training for members of a volunteer archaeological group and if that's successful may try to organise more (using accredited Wikipedia trainers).

4. One of the Arbcom candidates is standing on a pro-pie policy. Whilst you may find that to be a flippant approach, many editors do appreciate pie. What is your favourite kind of pie?

   Happy to discuss fruit pies, chess pies, Boston Cream Pie, etc with you on my talk page, but I don't think my food tastes are relevant here.

Questions from Fæ

2. I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of dispute?