Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Dusti/Questions

Individual questions[edit]

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from EllenCT[edit]

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?
Disruptive editing is certainly within the purview of the Arbitration Committee. Generally speaking, however, an editor is more likely to be indef'd or be the recipient of a community ban before it reaches the steps of Arbitration. At that point, you're going to be looking at a BASC appeal where said conduct would still end up being reviewed.
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?
This is tricky. Generally speaking people are more prone to having a quick summary/understanding and thus making a quick judgement subconciously when reviewing things. It's natural human behavior. On the flip side, while that's generally true, it would be irresponsible to not attempt to gather all of the facts and study them to try to gain that basic understanding to better evaluate the conduct and try to get to broader and deeper understanding on what exactly is going on. It brings that old "assumption" addage to mind.
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?
At first, I would be disappointed in said group of editors. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is something almost every editor who's been around for some time has seen at one time or another. As an encyclopedia, our responsibility is to comply with our core policies which include neutrality, conflicts of interest, and so many others that could be linked. Those editors would be admonished and reminded that we have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the information that we supply to the millions of visitors that we receive. Should the issue continue to escalate, or should these editors wish to take a stance, further action would have to be taken that's within our scope and abilities, including topic bans and editing restrictions. I'm not a fan of these restrictions because it's inhibiting an individuals ability to operate at his or her full potential, but should those restrictions enable others and further empower the wiki, I'm for it.
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?
This is a question that plays on a few "what ifs". In general, as long as individual openly states that they have a COI and that they're accepting remuneration for editing (and said editing remains neutral and not disruptive) they haven't done anything wrong. I would almost certainly expect that this edit would be called into question as well if we begin examining this individuals editing behaviors. I'm not a fan of paid editing, however, I believe every single edit that's well written, sourced, and helps build the wiki not only strengthens the encyclopedia, but also helps build a better world. Paid editing has almost always carried a negative stigma around here because of issues surrounding COI, Neutrality, and questions regarding our TOU - so in short, it's almost certainly going to be brought up.

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gamaliel[edit]

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?
This is a difficult question to answer, as I always try to assume good faith, as other should as well. Working in the type of environment that we do it's bound to happen that there's going to be conflict. I think a large amount of the disagreements that happen here is due to the vast differences within editors that we have. I'm from a different part of the world than you are most likely, and/or from a different community. I'm bound to think differently than you do, and perhaps I may have a different style and sense of communication. I may say something one way and (because it's the internet) you're going to interpret it a different way. That's going to cause conflict, especially among a community with hundreds of thousands of editors. Is civility an issue? Perhaps - but it's also potentially linked to a subset within the community. There's likely to be instances where someone's having a bad day and they spout off an insult out of frustration. Should it be enforced - oh absolutely. There should be minimal tolerance for any type of personal attacks, biting, or other forms of harassment which all fall under civility in my opinion. We are here to collaborate and build a website full of knowledge and to do so we have to work together. Should an individual not share that same sentiment, perhaps they should receive some assistance finding a way out.
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?
I've read of this a few times and I understand that to some this may be an issue. In my personal opinion, both as a gay male who's already a minority on this website and as an ArbCom candidate, I'm not sure what can be done. While not overly familiar with the entire situation I know that a task force committee has been put together to analyze the situation and come up with potential solutions and they will monitor the situation. It's certainly something that I think should be handled and reviewed by ArbCom. I believe that the issue has been ongoing and numerous threads were taken up at AN/I which shows that the community still thinks there's an issue. Arbitration may not be the overall best place for it, but at least there would be an additional set of eyes reviewing it along with complaints of misconduct to start working on the issue at hand. What should arbitration do? Obviously policies should either be made or revised regarding misconduct or harassment over the sexuality of an editor. Further, I know that suggestions had been made perhaps to have two editors show consensus before reverting a female editor. While that type of thinking is perhaps along the lines of making progress, I can see that specific idea turning away more female editors as it would appear that more than one individual is "teaming up" against them. I am anxious to see what happens and how it turns out, and I most definitely hope that I'm part of the team that helps create a better environment not only for female editors, but for the community as a whole.

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rschen7754[edit]

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.

What originally led you to join Wikipedia? What do you do on the site on a day-to-day basis?
I was in my broadcast communications class at the Indiana Soliders' and Sailors' Children's Home where I went to school, and I came across an article via a google search. I noticed the "edit" tab at the top and (like any kid) I made a silly edit. I believe I added "Hey Brendan" to it (he was sitting across from me waiting for us to go on air with the news). I reverted it myself, but I ended up creating an account and did some of the normal "newbie" stuff like immediately running for RFA. Since at the site I've grown into doing more menial tasks. I've worked with 3rd Opinion, New Pages Patrol, did a brief stint at the Welcoming Committee and more. On a normal day-to-day basis I like to go through and comment on, close, or !vote on Articles for Deletion. Occasionally I'll go through WP:AN/I to see what's current (or if there are any "critical" items that I could help with) along with some page patrol. I'll go through ACC and create any accounts who need a flagged user and wikignome or run huggle for awhile.
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?
There's a vast difference in myself and the editor who just made an edit three seconds ago. In real life, I work as a loss prevention officer and this job is fairly new to me (perhaps the change in personality from three years ago to today). I've come to understand the differences in individuals and learned how to help mediate and de-escalate situations a lot easier. I do my best to let the other individual know that I understand where they're coming from and show them how I came to my path of thinking. If you have patience and you take the time to lay out your thought process for an individual who doesn't understand why you're doing what you're doing - you can almost always end a dispute. I was blocked a few months ago because I let myself get frustrated and perhaps I could have re-worded what I said differently. In order to understand the path of the conversation you'd have to look at time stamps to see comments going back and forth not only on my talk page but that individuals as well. If you go by my talk page alone it seems that I rather quickly became dismissive while that's not entirely true. Keeping things centralized helps mediation while allowing both sides to talk things out and lay out their opinions. I'm a fan of doing this online actually because you get to take the time to slowly type things out and think things through before actually saying them out loud.
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?
One of the things that we have to keep in mind is that each colleague on the committee has a real life and potentially a real job. Not everyone gets to work on a 9AM-5PM schedule so patience has to be accounted for. While some cases and gone on for a significant amount of time I believe a majority of the cases, considering the nature of disputes, has taken a reasonable amount of time. It's my nature to always question things and look for easier alternatives and I would of course carry this through with me should I take a seat. I do believe that, in general, ArbCom is viewed as secretive and nobody really knows what happens "behind the scenes". I would like to see a more transparent ArbCom (of course confidentiality is a must in addition to discretion) that keeps the community updated. I believe that has always been the intention and I think updates along with an explanation of any delays can go a long way into keeping the community satisfied.
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 briefly touched on this a couple of times talking about collaboration. Sometimes individuals who are "subject experts" become narrow minded because they know what they're talking about and they deliver it in their own fashion while not keeping our standards in mind. You then get a "general editor" who's been around since the wiki started who knows the "standard" and how it should be delivered and we end up looking at a train wreck. This is where collaboration, patience, and understanding of general differences comes into play. I would love to see the day when all it would take is a neutral third party to re-word what each editor is saying and help them come to an understanding. The "expert" can have his information delivered in the "editors" standard format and everyone is happy.
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?
I'm never happy with the "status quo". The world is dynamic and what's great for the project today could be bettered tomorrow. One of the reasons I've not gone for adminship yet is because of the stigma some of the community has garnered. I think that nearly all of the administrators mopping up messes today are wonderful individuals and they deserve to have the mop. What generally starts a controversy is the fact that some admins may get used to having the mop and get caught up in day to day operations not realizing when they're actually using the tools (for example, editing through full protection). It's easy to do, and it's generally harmless. But when you see a non-admin who wants to make an edit and they're watching sysops go and make their edits while not paying attention to the edit request on the talk page, you get a little bit of frustration, which is understandable. It's about interconnecting the admins back with the rest of the community. I'm a fan of voluntary recall because it gives the community a sense of responsibility and ability. It enables them to have a voice when they normally wouldn't have a voice. I think there's a lot of hard work and tweaks that need to be made hand in hand with the community. I believe it will happen but it's going to take a lot of patience and bandwidth.
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've already revealed my off-wiki job and this is something that I literally see and experience every single day. I've had individuals make false allegations nearly every time that I've arrested someone. It's reality, it's life, and you get through it. What it takes is understanding that the person making said allegations is upset for some reason and they've felt ignored. Making the false allegation has again given him or her a voice and now they're getting the attention that they wanted. That attention and listening to the root cause of the problem is usually enough to satisfy them and they'll then withdraw the false allegation.
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?
These policies are the core of how the functionaries act. Each policy is crystal clear and allows very little wiggle room to do anything outside of their scope without consequences. I believe that the WMF handles said information very well and I know a few of them outside of the Wiki. I'm an individual who isn't afraid to ask questions if I'm unclear on something and as an Arb I certainly wouldn't be ashamed to continue going to them as my mentor for advice.
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?
I think the focus that Arbitration should be the last resort is absolutely correct. There are enough members within the community that most situations can and should be handled by them. We have to remain as community-driven as possible to remain free, open, and accessible to the world. As one of the largest websites in the world it's incredible how we operate and remain efficient. Removing the ability for the community to continue to drive the project would not only change our meaning but it would change the community as well, something that I think would be a terrible loss for the world. More serious situations or situations regarding the collection or use of personal information (i.e. disputes surrounding functionaries, etc.) that require an in depth look should of course be handled by ArbCom as we have the tools and the ability to gather the information necessary to handle the situation. Because of WMF policies we can't disclose that information to those who don't have that tool set and I think that alleviates risk and burden off of the community.

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda Arendt[edit]

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? As last year, I will not evaluate, but let the combined answers speak. Hint, after we had a first answer: you don't have to evaluate a whole case, just one request. My so far favourite comment has four words ;)
Oh dear me. There's much more than four words that could be said here. In this situation, the user is banned from adding or removing or discussion the addition or removal of infoboxes. The spirit of any time of action against a user is meant to prevent further harm to the project and/or its users. What's happened here is an edit that skirts on the boundaries of his sanctions and is perhaps a loophole - but the end result was a net benefit to the site, something that we should all be happy to see. It was done out of good faith and while a user may be worried about who actually did the edit and whether they were allowed to - the project wasn't harmed. IAR outlines this quite well. Thanks for a great question Gerda Arendt

"Something that we should all be happy to see." Great answer! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)]]![reply]

Question from Konveyor Belt[edit]

Consider the current case reqest at WP:A/R/C#GamerGate where many, many users have commented on the case. Presumably, all will want to participate in the case, which would cause unimaginable gridlock. How will you work to streamline the case process but also make sure that everyone's opinions are heard?
Most cases are going to be contentious and there is going to be a lot of comments. This case is no different. A lot of the comments are repeated and echo the concerns or statements already posted. Those could be moved to the talk page by a clerk. It's important for duplicate information to not be posted though those who are commenting are likely thinking that they're giving a fresh view and not echoing another community member. If I'm streamlining the process for myself it's sitting down and making notes of each point and the points to the case. It's impossible to please everyone and make sure that everyone feels happy - but above is at least a way to start.
I'm a little concerned about your comment here. As an arbitrator, you will need to deal with editors for whom their dispute is sensitive or personal. Editors may also take your comments personally, as someone who will be in a position of authority. How will you work with these personal or sensitive cases without offending anyone?
In taking a look, the comment was a little strong. I was going for tough love and trying to bring Flyer to see that flags aren't everything (something that I, as a newbie, had to learn a few years ago). I did go and offer my apologies and clarification to Flyer on their talk page. Moving to an ArbCom seat, you're certainly more in the spotlight and maintaining yourself as neutral and empathetic as possible is critical. Every statement that I would make will be clearly thought out and mentally reviewed before "Save page" is pressed. It's never guaranteed that someone may not take something that I say the wrong way and it's entirely possible that someone may be offended. I will certainly do my best to be as clear, empathetic, and cordial as possible. As always, I try to go the good faith route and will always be there to clarify a statement to an editor - though my focus and intent is to always be as clear and respectful as possible, at all times, regardless of the circumstances. I'm a collaborator and will always be open to suggestions, feedback, and criticism and I realize that stepping up that will come more and more and I'm more than receptive to that. It's never my intention to hurt someone's feelings or be impolite. I prefer being open and honest and occasionally that may mean saying something that someone doesn't want to hear, however, I always try to do and say the right thing.

Thanks in advance for answering. KonveyorBelt 17:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late answer - I didn't realize I had missed a question. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect[edit]

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?
Of course a case can be opened without that presumption. There have been times (and it's still entirely possible) that cases can be closed with warnings, clarifications, and reminders. Arbs should never feel obligated to impose sanctions. They should feel obligated to remain impartial and do only what they feel is best for the wiki and the community. In a perfect society the worst that would happen is an admonishment or stern warning and while that's not usually what happens in today's wiki community, it's entirely possible for cases to be closed as such.
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?
Not all editors named in an Arb case are actually involved or have displayed sufficient behavior to warrant anything other than a warning. One individual out of an entire case could be Topic Banned while the rest are admonished or face different remedies. Obviously previous attempts to deal with said editor(s) will be reviewed in addition to an AN/I thread. With ArbCom being the last step in dispute resolution, it's entirely possible that at the time of the thread there were sufficient other options that could have been tried thus showing that there wasn't consensus for a topic ban. With that said, ArbCom shouldn't impose any sanctions without seeing that a policy or guideline has been violated, Topic Ban or otherwise.
Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?
Never. Committee members should always be aware of the case and the issues surrounding it before agreeing to participate.
"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?
It's a valid position, but caution needs to be used when using it.Stare decisis is, from what I see, quite flexible in the United States but not definitive and can change. If a ruling was based on law/policy then - that law or policy can change which makes said rulings inaccurate and invalid. For example, if the committee was right in 2006 regarding the {{user padeophile}} userbox issue, it's likely still correct today but that doesn't mean that all Arbs will agree with all past cases and remedies.
Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?
Of course. The five pillars are the foundation of our principal and guide us on how we build the encyclopedia from day to day. The "weighing" part seems to insinuate that perhaps one could be more important than the other which I'd caution against. When you start saying that ignoring all rules is more important than say neutrality you start deviating away from the legitimacy and importance of equally upholding those pillars. If someone's gone against two principals can you say one is worse than the other? No. Can you say it's worse to violate two pillars rather than one? Yes.
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?
BLP and related policies are each individually important. When you get into an issue with a article about a living person there can be serious repercussions for the site on inaccurate or inflammatory information and those policies have been put in place to alleviate a lot of potential issues - so they should be strictly followed, for not only the sake of the site and community, but for the individual the article is about. Wikipedia is currently the sixth most popular website in the world and we owe it to users who read our site to provide accurate information and treat those who's articles we hold with the same kind of civility and courtesy that we expect editors to treat each other with.
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?
We do have editors who form "cliques" if you will (or "factions") and it's certainly possible that they share the same viewpoints on an article and try to "take over" said article. That in itself goes against several policies and guidelines that we have and ~~I would hope that the community could sort out the mess rather than bringing it to Arbcom~~ I would much rather see the community come to gether to be able to handle it than have a case come to Arbcom. It shows collaboration and teamwork really do work and that our community is strong. Should, for whatever reason, a case come before the Committee and it's accepted and one of the findings is that there's a group of editors who have taken over an article inappropriately and pushed their viewpoints on it - I still believe remedies should be placed individually. Regardless as to how the "faction" acted, while I certainly believe that a remedy can be assigned to a group - it's serve much better to have the individual accounts marked and logged. In addition, everyone acts differently and I'm sure there would be major and minor players in the game that would be treated differently by the Committee. It's all about assuming good faith and trying to be fair overall.

Questions from Rich Farmbrough[edit]

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?
I believe the goal of the committee is to safeguard the community. As such, when cases come before the committee and decisions are made, those should be as narrow as possible and affect only the individuals/issues surrounding that case. Policies are made and voted on by the community and ArbCom, while voted in by the community, shouldn't make such major changes. We should clarify our interpretation of policies and help better the site. The remedy that you linked above is one that I feel has empowered the community and enabled the community to make quick and reasonable actions to swiftly respond to a BLP issue. With the site, as I said above, being ranked #6 in the world - we have to act quickly and swiftly to reasonably protect a living persons character.
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've gone through a lot of changes over the last several years including the adoption of a child. With the major life events done and over, I have quite a bit more of reasonable time to actually contribute to projects that I care about, including Wikipedia. With that said, activity levels fluctuate but when there is a case or something that needs my attention, I will fully devote myself and put in the required time an effort to do my part.
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?
There's a saying about this for both views - the more the merrier and too many cooks in the kitchen. In this respect I can see case times increasing, which is already a concern. There's benefits of course, but this is something that would require some discussion amongst the community and some potential changes in order to be more beneficial rather than detrimental.
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?
I certainly think so. I have a lot of experience in my current real life job handling a large amount of stress and dealing with individuals who aren't exactly thrilled to be meeting me. I know when to remove myself from a situation and do my best to de-escalate a situation in the mere moments I see it starting to boil in an effort to make the situation better for everyone involved.
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?
Discretion is a huge part of the role here, and while I may not agree with my future colleagues, I believe that it would be quite disrespectful and rude to publicly state your approval or disdain over the outcome of a case. There are mailing lists such information can be sent to to remain as professional and courteous as possible. While I may not like certain individuals it's not appropriate to air that dirty laundry. It takes away from the professionalism of the committee. Further, remaining impartial means not becoming involved in the case yourself. It's the duty of the individual bringing the case to the Committee to ensure that the case is presented completely and that all involved parties are listed and notified.
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?
I've never brought a case to ArbCom before or been in a case - so I would certainly waive that right.
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?
Without an example of one such block it's difficult to speculate. Behavioral information in itself isn't in itself private and should a CheckUser be convinced enough to make the block they could certainly label it as a CheckUser block. Any checkuser block can be disputed and appealed, either to the checkuser who made it, the checkuser list, to arbcom, etc. Should a CheckUser make a block based off of a hunch and no technical data or evidence to back up the block, I see that as misuse of the bit and would likely take further action.
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?
We're not here to offer someone(s) justice - we're here to bring forth a resolution to a dispute based on our five pillars and what the community as a whole believes to be true and accurate. That's not going to appease everyone and certainly some will (or already have) felt like "justice" wasn't done. This isn't real life court and we're not here to worry about justice being served. We're here to collaborate and ensure that a substantial project continues functioning. That means providing rational policy/consensus based resolutions to disputes that arise.

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

Questions from Everyking[edit]

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? Everyking (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting topic as in my statement I've said that ArbCom has a history of not being all that open or transparent in it's deliberations and the cases brought forth. I do think that most, if not all, work done by ArbCom should be open for the public to see. We/They need to know that ArbCom is working for us/them. I know that there are cases and threads that contain private information and that, of course, shouldn't publicly posted. I will make a pledge to do all I can to remain as transparent as possible as an individual Committee member. I realize that not everything can be done in public and some needs to be done in private, and as such I think that certain efforts need to be made to let the community know something is going on behind the scenes - so they know something is actually happening. Most of the frustration I believe lies within the fact that with so much has been done privately in the past it wasn't clear if the committee is actively working on a case. At times it may seem that nothing's going on and there's no explanation provided as to why it's taking so long for a case to be decided on. This transparency - or this attempt at transparency - can go a long way in helping.

Question from Rotten regard[edit]

Can you please tell me the order of importance that you rank Wikipedia's Five Pillars in and the reasons for your rankings.
I said above that one principal cannot be put in front of another. Each pillar must be treated equally important. Doing anything less would crumble the integrity of the pillars and weaken their importance.

Questions from Carrite[edit]

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?
Something to keep in mind is that these are all volunteers who are doing a pretty thankless task. That said, the entire setup isn't really ideal per se - so I give them an A. They're doing the best they can with the resources and abilities that they have. To preserve the integrity and professionalism of the Committee I would rather not weigh what I view as my potential colleagues' successes or failures as a candidate that needs to show neutrality.
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?
There are discussions of splitting Arb up into smaller panels which could potentially improve times.
If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?
I would like to see better interaction and cohesiveness with the community and it's admins and functionaries. There seems to be a gap and said gap has caused some animosity and anger as parts of the community feel underrepresented and mute.

Questions from Dennis Brown[edit]

Without naming names, what skills or qualities do you have that are unique, that might not be present in the current Arbs or candidates? What makes you stand out?
I'd say the qualities that I possess are likely present in the other candidates as well. I'm quite patient, friendly, outgoing, and I have real life experience at dispute resolution and de-escalation.

Assuming you are elected at Arb, what role do you expect to play as part of that committee?
There aren't any specific roles per se within ArbCom aside from those who draft, etc. and those who sit on sub-committees. I'd certainly offer to sit WP:BASC.

What have you done at Wikipedia that you think makes you particularly suitable for the position of Arb?
I've shown (rather recently) my ability to handle stressful situations, to be calm and collective, and to assume good faith. I mentor editors who aren't starting off on the right foot and try everything I can to retain them.

I apologize for answering these late. I've been fighting a terrible cold and have been operating less than fully functional these last few days :) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 17:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question(s) from Worm That Turned[edit]

Hi, I'm Dave, one of the outgoing arbitrators - but you may remember me from your 2011 RfA. Now, my impression of you is positive, but not as resilient as I'd like an arbitrator to be. 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?
Hey Dave. I took a trip down memory lane last night and actually looked at that RfA. I can honestly say that I wish none of those RfA's existed - but unfortunately they do. I was nowhere near ready to be an admin several years ago. It's an unfortunate truth that being an Arb is tough - perhaps tougher than it really should be. I'm used to facing criticism on a daily basis with my real life job. Individuals that I arrest tend to mock me, hate me, insult me, threaten me, and I've had RL harassment to the point that an alarm system has been installed at home. Very little can phase me at this point with online work (I do consider this a job, a fun one albeit :)). I recall some of the Arb outings and harassment issues that have come to light over the past few years and it gives me a newfound respect for past and current ArbCom members. A lot of individuals naturally have a resilience to badgering and controversy. I, as seen in former RfA's, obviously didn't. Aging and gaining maturity coupled with my current profession have given me the skills, knowledge, and confidence to handle stressful issues in the most peaceful of manners and have taught me how to quickly disengage from an issue should it be necessary. While on ArbCom you can't necessarily disengage, however, you can de-escalate situations and ignore offcolour remarks and such and realize that usually it's not personal.

Dusti, that was an excellent answer, and I'll comment a little more on my voter guide. Thanks for taking the time to, and best of luck. Worm^TT(talk) 09:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tryptofish[edit]

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!
I think that is an excellent start to making ArbCom more open and connected to the community. So long as each action still complies with the applicable WMF policies then I'm all for it. We need to be open and accountable.

Question from Carcharoth[edit]

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.
~~I just want to acknowledge that I just saw this, and will be answering this either tonight or tomorrow.~~ Sorry for the delay, my son was sick. Thanks for the questions @Carcharoth:
3. - Emails that are "emergencies" should be sent to the official emergency email for the WMF. If it's not an actual emergency then perhaps it could wait until other Arbs are around to discuss it. (Without an actual context, it's hard to say).
7. - It's bound to happen. Rather than allowing the tensions to rise I'd either email that clerk privately or have a civil on-wiki discussion. If they still feel that their actions were permissible and other Arbs also agreed, I'd back down. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.
11. - If I'm too fatigued and ~~feel~~ know so - I'm not going to be able to make a clear contentious decision. I'd ask if I could have a couple of hours to take a "power nap" to be able to make a decision on a clear and sound mind.
...and finally
8. - if more than one individual thinks I need to recuse myself, I'm entirely fine doing so. Individuals don't always realize they have a COI and if there's calls that I have one, I'm entirely fine stepping back. My colleagues and I have a duty to ensure that we're fair.

Questions from Bazonka[edit]

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?
Unfortunately where I live I don't know of any such groups in my area, otherwise I'd love do to the networking and meet other community members face to face. I do have a large number of wiki friends on Facebook and know several functionaries personally. I'd likely change some of my behavior if elected to the Committee and watch my wording and such more closely to ensure that I maintain a neutral attitude about such topics that come towards the Committee in an effort to remain as professional as possible.
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?
Oh good lord, I've got a very weak spot for some good pecan pie ;)

Questions from Fæ[edit]

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?
I openly identify as male and as a member of the LGBT community. As an individual who faces daily discrimination based on my sexual orientation, I've developed methods and ways to cope and strategies to help combat misguided theories, thoughts, and inappropriate practices. Knowledge is power and some people need educated. I'd stand as an individual who could help represent the LGBT community in some cases, however, it may also be necessary for me to recuse myself from said cases due to a COI - and I'd be more than willing to do so. I'm firm in my belief that individuals should be treated fairly, equally, and be represented the same way regardless of race, sexual orientation, or gender. Thanks for the question!