Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Technical 13/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

It is 12:22 PM where this user lives. ⁽⁾

---

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? As last year, I will not evaluate, but let the combined answers speak.

   Wow. There is a lot of required reading involved in this case in order to understand the background and scope of the issue and complaint. This may take me a day or two to read through, please do not take my delay in answering this question (situation) as an inability to answer. I will do as promptly as I am able.
      Okay, so I believe I have read through enough of the details of what exactly the situation was. First thing I notice is that there was no violation on Andy's part as there was no restriction in place preventing him from repairing a malformed infobox. I also notice that despite the motion to ban from infoboxes appearing to pass in the summary as Passed 7 to 3 at 8:18 pm, 10 September 2013, Tuesday (UTC−4), looking down at the actual Support v. Oppose section shows me that the final count was actually failed 5 to 7 as Roger Davies and NativeForeigner both actually changed their mind and flipped to the oppose side. This makes me question if there is actually even a consensus for a ban to currently be in place.I slept on it and re-read. My first reading through I missed the key words For reference, the relevant remedy relating to Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is: — Thew wording that was being proposed to modify says Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes. which broken down says he is unable to add any infoboxes to any pages (says nothing about repairing, modifying, or deleting), and he is not allowed to discuss the addition or removal of infoboxes. All of that said, after nearly a decade of blocks and confrontational issues with multiple editors, having had my share of discussions with Andy that were tense to say the least at times, and seeing for myself that he has improved some on this aspect of wiki editing, I'd encourage him to work just a little bit harder on his apparent struggle with Assuming Good Faith and trying to be a little more clear in some of his edit summaries to reduce the amount of confrontations he has to deal with. I'd also encourage him, based on his history, to be a little quicker than others to just step back from anything that could be construed as edit warring and attempt to discuss on the talk page or get a 3O if discussion isn't working.

May I summarize: "There was no restriction in place preventing him from repairing a malformed infobox"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 15 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?

   —   I originally joined Wikipedia for multiple reasons.
       1. This first, and more obvious reason, was to add a little bit of content that was missing from a topic I know a fair amount about. Looking back at that edit, and knowing a lot more about the editing guidelines and policies than I could have thought possible, I see those first edits left a lot to be desired.
      2. The second reason was to spend more time interacting with different parts of the MediaWiki software itself. To be better at creating and manipulating templates and parser functions to achieve desired outcomes. To learn things about the interface.
   —  I've settled down some recently in my day to day activities (I no longer spend all day doing nothing but working on Wikipedia projects, as I realize that level of editing probably isn't very healthy). My day to day activities vary fairly widely as I try to work on backlogs where-ever I may find them; XfD, AfC, ACC, G13, AWB, various help desks/noticeboards/village pumps. I also spend quite a bit of time creating and modifying templates and userscripts when I find repetitive tasks that I feel could benefit from such things.

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 had a lot of practice over the last couple years with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of various backgrounds, opinions, philosophies. The outcomes of such collaborations, more often than not, have not been as I had hoped, but I usually find that they are generally fair. I go into every new discussion keeping in mind that it is a new discussion and reminding myself that while opinions and viewpoints may differ greatly from mine, I need to AGF and assume that everyone involved has the same goal of improving Wikipedia overall. There have been times when I've found it very difficult to AGF of some users going into a discussion based on past interactions with that user, and in those cases I have no problem saying that I'm having difficulty AGFing and I have no problem stepping back from the issue and letting others set the tone for the discussion. I always focus my comments on the topic of the discussion instead of the users involved.
   —   What I've learned from these experiences is that it's okay to not have the last word and it's okay to not agree with the majority of commenters as long as the resulting actions fairly reflect the consensus.

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'll admit that my interaction with the arbitration committee has been fairly limited, and I think that is a good thing. I believe that all cases should be handled with an utmost due diligence. All of the facts and claims that have been presented to the committee need time to be read, mentally processed, slept on, reconsidered to make sure there is nothing that has been overlooked, and then decided upon. If this process takes a few days or a week or two to occur based on the number and complexity of the presented materials, so-be-it. In most cases, I don't feel there is any reason to leave a case hanging for weeks on end. An exception to that might be cases where the case is entirely unclear and there is reason to believe that giving all of the parties involved a little more ROPE may clear up key aspects of the case. I have no plans to propose any reforms at this time but that may just be due to the fact that I've never been an arbitrator before and I don't know where reforms may be needed.

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'm not sure I entirely understand the question. "Subject experts" are bound to the same guidelines and standards as any other editor on Wikipedia. I would expect them to be professionals in most cases and be willing to read the pertinent pages on Wikipedia standards before posting information as to avoid OR or COI issues and certainly to go research the reasons behind any objections that are raised to their edits.

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?

    Per my comment in the discussion to abolish the current RfA system, I think the current system for nominating and electing administrators is badly broken and in part responsible for the decline of editorship. What that discussion doesn't mention, although a subsequent section to Do Away with RFC/U touches on, is that the methods and system in place for removal of adminship are also no longer functioning as intended. I would welcome, and greatly contribute to, further discussion resulting in a change to improve that overall process. I think that there is a feeling amongst many "general editors" that adminship is a position of authority and as such is a big deal. Whilst administrators are the only ones with a certain subset of tools required to preform some actions, they are also bound to the same expectations as everyone else to use those tools appropriately. There appear to be a lot of people who do not know or have forgotten that adminship is NOBIGDEAL.

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?

    My ability to carry out my tasks as an arbitrator are not influenced by unfounded accusations or harassment. I was "that kid" in grade school that was bullied. It lasted for about 10 years of my life, there is nothing that can happen here that I've not dealt with worse.

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 fairly familiar with the Privacy policy as a account creator. I've had some interaction with the CheckUser policy as an account creator and in my involvement in a handful of SPI cases. I've made a few requests for oversight, of which some have been carried out and a couple have been declined. As a result of those declines, I've had to go back and research why they were declined by reading parts of the Oversight policy in more depth than an average user who has never requested OS for a preteen who has posted their email, phone, address, or other personally identifying information on their user page. I've read all of the policies, and I have no issues with reading them again and using them as reference sheets for any actions that I may be considering to make sure that I am compliant.

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?

    My view leans heavily on the idea that arbitration should normally only occur when there is a deadlock in ability in the community to progress any further towards a consensus or a resolution to a situation.

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

2. I guess I have to ask this as well: you've been involved in an unusually high amount of controversy on this project (compared to most successful candidates, even most candidates overall), as well as an unusually high number of unsuccessful rights requests. What sort of effect do you think this (being in controversy, and the underlying causes for it) will have on your candidacy, and if elected, on your ability to carry out the duties of an arbitrator?

   I have been involved in an unusually high number of controversial issues which has led to me being in an unusually high amount of controversy. I consider that an asset that I'm not afraid to investigate and review and question the more difficult or more controversial issues. I don't consider my withdrawn requests as unsuccessful, I think of them as successful learning experiences. I expect that some users may not see the positive aspects of these experiences and I expect that may result in me having a more difficult time being a successful candidate. The last part of this question is what I consider the most important part of it, as I don't think my willingness to engage in controversial issues or my lack of success in requests for tools-sets that I would have put to good use will have any effect on my ability to carry out the duties of an arbitrator.

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?

   Having not been in such a situation, it is hard to say. If the circumstances suggest it is the appropriate action, and there is some kind of unity amongst the committee members that it is appropriate, then I would likely support it. If it didn't seem reasonable to me, I would make my thoughts on that clear as well.

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?

   Since my breakup with my ex, I've had all sorts of extra time for something since I no longer have to wait on her hand and foot anymore. It was more work taking care of everything she wanted than it was taking care of our one year old daughter. Anyways, I've quite a bit of free time to devote to work on cases.

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?

   As a current college student, I've recently taken a few management, social science, psychology type classes and from those classes I've learned that the ideal group size for efficiently working on a problem is 6-8 people. As such, I would support a solution of this nature.

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?

   I have an exceptional ability to keep calm. I don't feel that anyone gains anything when a participant in a discussion loses their temper. It simply slows down progress as the rest of the parties need to deal with the person who has lost their temper which distracts from the task at hand.

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?

    If I had an opinion at the onset of a case, I'd certainly recuse myself and keep my opinion to myself. Any opinion of the outcome of a case should be fairly evident my public comments in the case as are appropriate. I wouldn't be opposed to requesting that a user add another party to a case that they claim had some involvement that supports their case and other committee members agree it would be appropriate. I wouldn't personally add another party to the case.

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?

    I am certainly willing to either wave my right to submit cases for consideration by the committee and if a case is submitted that I was in any way involved in prior to or during my term, declare a conflict of interest and entirely recuse myself from the case. There are plenty of other things I can be doing as an arbitrator then contributing to a case where I may be considered bias by involvement.

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?

    This is not something I would do or condone. I consider it inappropriate abuse of power to make blocks that are only suppose to be made when there is relevant information (private or not).

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?

    That seems like a fairly accurate comment about the process. Then again, that is how all of Wikipedia works, it's not about who's right or wrong, it's about what the majority of the community consensually agree should be.

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

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?

   Not until it gets to a point of disruption that the community can't resolve on its own. I have faith in the community to be able to deal with such a user if that is the only issue.

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?

   Sure, anything is possible. I, however, don't think such an evaluation would be as accurate as an evaluation that was based on an attempt to understand and verify as many of the facts and sources of the underlying dispute before evaluating their conduct as an editor. I also believe that just because the editor's rationale may be reasonably sound at the root cause, doesn't give them an excuse to ignore the community or deal with the situation rashly or inappropriately.

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 would think that such a group of experienced editors would be aware of WP:5P#2. I would be very disappointed in such a group of editors, but would also expect such an issue would be able to be resolved by the community and not need to be escalated to a level of an arbitration case.

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?

   It would be a single example to back up their claim of a COI issue, so I would expect some may refer to that example. Whether or not that example would be considered as a verification of an issue, I would say that it would not in-of-itself. I'm more likely to expect that to be more of a case of an inexperienced or young user that wasn't aware at the time of what a high quality independent reliable source is.

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions from Elonka

2. Hi, especially considering your mentioning your access levels at the other wiki, I am curious why you decided to run for arbitrator here on Wikipedia, before running for administrator? --Elonka 18:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

   I consider this a very good question. I have considered, a few times, running for the administrator toolset. I have thought about how I would use that toolset to improve the quality of templates that are protected, how I would be able to go through and clean up more of code on Wikipedia that is not up to HTML5 standards in places like interface messages and protected templates and modules, I've though about how it would improve the encyclopedia to be able to help when there are backlogs on XfD discussions and in CSD categories (most likely the ever fluctuating G13 backlog), I think of how it could qualify me to be added to the checkuser group so that I could help with the massive backlogs that occur in the ACC system. All of these things that most would agree would contribute to a net gain on the encyclopedia. Then, I remember how broken the RfA process itself is. How RfA has become such a big deal to so many users. I've had multiple editors suggest I should run on my talk page and via email, and I've even had administrators offer to nominate me. I've considered those offers, and discussed the idea of it with others (most often I've asked those that I strongly believe would oppose as I know they won't sugar coat their responses and I will at least get some honesty, even if it's not exactly what I want to hear), and ultimately declined the offers based on what I believed the outcome would have been at the time.
   
   Then, yesterday evening, I saw the banner on the top of the watchlist saying "Nominations for the 2014 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open until Tuesday 23:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)", and I got curious and decided to click on the link to the nomination page. When I got there, I found that despite the nominations being open for almost two whole days, there were no candidates. So, I read through all of the instructions, typed in my name and started creating my candidacy. I found that there where multiple broken links, outdated preload templates set up, and invalid HTML code here and there. I went through the process to set up a candidate, using myself as a test-case and putting in information as-if I was actually going to run, making sure to click on and save everything so that the next candidate that wanted to run would have a much easier time of it. When I was all done, and had everything apparently working, double checking my work, I paused for a "moment" and realized that I had actually put myself in for candidacy. I thought about what my responsibilities would be as an arbitrator, and spent a great deal of time reading through some of last year's successful candidates, some of whom I've collaborated with on other projects such as ACC. I thought to myself, "Hey, I could be really good at this. I'm good getting to know all the details, I'm not afraid to ask tough questions (or answer them), and I'm not easily sweet talked into seeing what isn't there." So, I decided, that regardless of the outcome, I might as well stick it out and if I get a seat on the committee, I think I will be a great asset to any discussions or topics that might arise.

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?

   My experience has been that while there are a number of editors that have given me cause for concern about the level of civility in cases of confrontation, the general tone of the majority of Wikipedians is a reasonably civil one. There do seem to be a number of people who often mistake an objection to content they've contributed as an objection to them personally, and this seems to spark the first occurrences of uncivil comments. As a {{Help me}} responder, I've been drawn to content disputes and have looked over the processes in place at 3O and the DRN, and I've seen the results of those processes. Sometimes they work as intended and there is good progress made on both the article and the ability of the editors involved to collaborate in a constructive manner. Sometimes, however, those methods don't seem to work at all, and the intent of the process seems to backfire and cause the initial contributor to feel "ganged up on" or "mobbed". I would personally love to see a proposal from an editor for an IEG to research this topic more, as I feel there is still a great deal we don't understand about why it happens and how we can best deal with it. While it's not so much a problem that editors are generally being nasty to each other (quite the opposite in most cases), there is a problem in the way that we currently deal with the situation when it does arise. Where-as these editors may be already feeling defensive as if they are in a battle to the death, I don't think a "more strict" "enforcement" of this pillar is the correct course of action. I'd much rather think that a more empathetic, educating and reminding method would be more productive to the encyclopedia.

4. 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?

   While it is reported on Wikipedia:Wikipedians that 86% of editors are male, I don't see what that has to do with editing Wikipedia. I've actually someone followed the multiple discussions and debates on if there is a gender inequality issue and whether or not it is effecting the quality, tone, and or topic of the articles we have to offer. As I read through these discussions (which I generally avoid commenting on because I don't feel that a majority of people would agree with my beliefs on these topics), I ask myself why does it matter to these editors if other editors are male or female; straight, gay, or bi; Caucasian, African, Hispanic, Asian, or any other nationality? Is it disallowed for a straight, Caucasian male to write about My Little Pony or a gay, Hispanic female to edit our page on the topic of American Football? I don't think so, why should it be? I don't think our physical differences are the problem, I think the problem is that too many people think that such things are a problem. I think that too many people let what they think others will think of them get in the way of progress and contributing to the articles that they want to contribute to. I think that people need to let go of such petty differences and let go of what many perceive as pride in their gender or nationality or orientation and instead take pride in creating quality content that will attract more readers of all backgrounds.
   —   The core of the real problem here is an issue of social stigmas concerning what is or isn't appropriate for people of certain backgrounds to contribute to, and that is unfortunately way out of the scope of what any committee could possibly change. That is change that can only happen amongst the editors in the community.

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2014 (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?

   I don't assume that sanctions will be necessary or that they will inevitably have to be imposed.

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?

   ArbCom shouldn't impose any sanction where there are no specific findings of any violation of policies or guidelines.

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

   I would never participate in a case where I did not have a fundamental understanding of the case being presented and the underlying potential causes.

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?

   People should be able to rely on a consistent view of policies and guidelines from case to case by the arbitration committee. However, if the community has decided that consensus on something has changed, the arbitrators view of the policies and guidelines should reflect that community decision.

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

    The WP:5P WP:Principles is a building block of all of what Wikipedia is suppose to be. Yes, I find it is of value in assessing ArbCom cases.

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?

    This feels like a weighted question to me, is the BLP issue the only issue, are there a few other issues to consider, or are there lots of issues to consider? The weight given to any one policy is a direct correlation of the overall weight of the issue.

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?

    A faction is a group of editors that pushes a POV in an article or a topic shared by multiple articles. A faction may be disguised as a WikiProject, although not all WikiProjects are factions. Due to the nature of a faction, I might expect such a thing to be something that the community has a difficult time resolving on its own. Sanctions may be appropriate to deal with a behavioral issue having to do with a faction.

Questions from Ankit Maity

2. You have nearly all of the rights that editors below sysops can have. You also appear to have quite a good edit count with most of it in the user talk namespace. What is the reason that you haven't run for adminship yet?

   As I explained above in some detail in my reply to Elonka's Question, I feel the RfA process is badly broken and simply does not work. My editing history isn't perfect resulting in more than my share of intense disputes. A lack of fear to disagree with the majority when I think there are inadequacies in the wording of guidelines or policies has gotten me into much trouble at times and indef blocked once that lasted less than 30 hours. Because of these issues, I believe that any RfA I run would be unsuccessful at this time, or at any time in the foreseeable futuire. Considering, my area of interest in editing has always been of a technical nature such as templates, modules, userscripts, interface messages, and the like and these tasks are very difficult to accomplish without the toolsets that grant access to those areas of the encyclopedia, I would meet much more resistance than most and going through the process would be a net loss to the project taking up valuable editor's time.

4. Many people refer to ArbCom actions as a lengthy drama. What are your reactions and how do you believe will you tackle the problem if there is one at all?

   I'm a very calm person; if there are problems, I know that any reactions I have will be cool, well researched and calculated, and just reflect the facts presented to me as I see them.

6. What are your views on the recent discussions about reforming RfA. You can find them at the village pump and also at the wikipedia talk page of RfA.

   I've answered similar questions to this in other places on this page. I did some number crunching for the main discussion you linked, and presented the raw data in a few charts and graphs. I think RfA needs to be completely redone, as I believe that it is harmful to the encyclopedia in its current form. What a reformed process may look like, I have no idea and do not care to speculate.

8. What is your stance against paid advocacy considering the content added by companies like Wiki-PR is not outright bias but a skillfully built and researched article?

   I'm personally believe that the content should speak for itself. If an article is a well written, neutral, encyclopedic piece of work, the writers of the article disclose individually on the talk page for that article that they have a COI as a PE, and don't try to claim OWNership of the content and prevent other editors from revising the article as is appropriate to deal with lack of sources or NPOV issues, then so what if they were paid to write the article. It is really a moot point to me as long as they are following all of the content guidelines, policies, etc.

That's all, thank you. You might get 1 or 2 more as bonus. :) --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 06:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions from Biblioworm

2. You are apparently not an administrator. Seeing that Arbitrators are usually given access to the CU and OS tools, what is your opinion on a person holding these two rights without being an admin first?

   I only see the sysop, CU, and OS groups as toolsets that are to be used to simplify completion of a job. I think that assuming a person should hold the group of tools in one set before they are eligible for another set that does not need the tools to perform duties they are intended to perform makes a bigger deal out of the tool sets and implies a level of authority in those tools that I personally frown upon. I don't see anything I would need the admin toolset for in order to preform tasks as an arbitrator. I don't expect to need to use OS for much except to be able to read things that may have been OSed by another that may be relevant to my review of a situation. The only toolset that I may make actual use of are the CU tools because my experience is that sockpuppetry of individuals who have had an unfavorable binding decision seems to be an issue.

4. You were once indef blocked for "disruptive editing". Even though that was some time ago, can you explain the background behind the block and how you have since learned from it? (I really do expect Arbitrators not to have been previously indef blocked.)

   To be entirely honest, I don't dwell in the past and every time someone asks me to talk about my block over a year ago, I have to go back and look it over to see what it was all about. In that case, the issue was that I wasn't being clear about what I wanted, and as it result it was considered disruptive by some users. One the issues I had when I started editing regularly was that, even though I didn't care if I was agreed with (and welcomed a difference in opinion and discussion on the topic), I needed acknowledgement that my point was heard and understood even if not agreed with. I did not get that acknowledgement in that case, and was blocked for pushing a little too hard to try and get it. I quickly realized that I was often not going to be acknowledged in those cases and have been fairly productive and have learned when to just give up on trying to get acknowledgement in a discussion. As an arbitrator, I believe I would be able to more completely understand all sides of a case and find a peace resolution to most issues that may arise.

6. Apologies if I'm making a big deal out of a minor issue, but I'm a bit concerned about your recent behavior at User_talk:Allen2. You didn't display the level of patience I expect from an Arbitrator (by putting all words in bold and underline, for example). When serving on the ArbCom, you will come across much more stressful and serious cases than a 14 year old kid who loves a pony show. Can you tell us how you will deal with these stressful cases?

   I am not, and have not been stressed in the least about the Allen2 situation. I have actually, for reasons unknown to me, been following this editor since before his rename from User:AllenHAcNguyen. Looking over his editing history, I'm guessing I first noticed him around March on the THQ page. What you, and possibly others, see in my comments as a lack of patience is seen by me as clarifying the important sentiments in a way that I hope a young boy, who seems to struggle with the English language and seems to have some issues with feeling acceptance into something, can understand. As far as I can tell, my attempt at communicating in a method he can understand seems to be working because he seems to have stopped editing for the last three days, I've gotten no further emails, and I've gotten no more posts on my talk page on other projects. I think I'll let these results speak for themselves here.

I may add more questions as I think of them. Thanks in advance for your answers. --Biblioworm 14:58, 12 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? Everyking (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

   While the concept and idea of greater transparency is something I generally support, I can't say for certain if ArbCom's practice of deciding cases isn't as transparent as it can reasonably be. The reason I say that is that it is more important to me that arbitrators must maintain the Privacy policy than be completely transparent in these cases.

Question from Hasteur

2. Being that Arbitrators are supposed to be the everlasting paragons of WikiVirtue, how do you reconcile your previous sanctions, Rights collecting, improper use of rights, and significant failures to demonstrate the virtues required? Hasteur (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

   Thank you for your question Hasteur. Unfortunately, I'm simply going to have to decline to answer this question. The majority of the parts have been asked and answered above and I read this question from you as a provocative statement and less as a question. All that being said, if you have a legitimate question, I'd be happy to answer to the best of my abilities.

Questions from QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV

2. Do you believe that competence should be a factor when making arbitration decisions? That is, should the expertise (or lack thereof) of a party to an arbitration case be a factor when deciding an arbitration case of Randy versus an expert?

   I've spent a few days thinking about this question, and I still am not convinced I understand exactly what this question aims to ask. What I can say is that I expect the competence of all parties involved to be considered when making a decision in a case. Randy would need to be base their changes in independent reliable sources and the experts may need to take a step back and try to become more calm and realize that while everything they want to add may be true, it needs to be based in independent reliable sources as well to avoid being OR. A lack of an ability to do those things may be a red flag of an underlying CIR issue.

Question from Rotten regard

2. What in your opinion is Wikipedia's greatest strength?

   I feel the greatest strength of Wikipedia is ability to provide a neutral, well sourced, database of information on various noteworthy topics to the world. While there are pages that aren't always neutral or well sourced, our experienced editors make great strides to improve those articles once found.

4. What in your opinion is Wikipedia's greatest weakness?

   In my opinion, the greatest weakness of Wikipedia is often editors' inability to resolve conflict that arise when people that have different opinions about things fail to employ productive communication techniques. As such, I would love to see more research, perhaps through a Foundation Grant, to put together a better resolution process than the modules we are currently using.

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?

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?

   I see most of the delay here as a result in the time it takes all of the members to review the case and based on real life issues for all members, some may take longer than others to get back. Then there are requests for more information and waiting periods for replies to those requests. I am not convinced that speeding up the process is necessarily a good idea and am afraid that any attempt to do so in most cases would compromise the integrity of the process.

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

   This is an excessively difficult question in my mind. There are a lot of processes that need review and possible reform, and the biggest "problem" on Wikipedia isn't necessarily a result of Wikipedia itself. The variable the causes the most issues on Wikipedia are the "bad apple editors" and it only takes one to "ruin the pie". I'd like to see the dispute resolution process researched and reformed; I'd like to see the RfA process researched and reformed; I'd like to see the AfC process researched and reformed; I'd like to see various other workflows and processes researched and reformed, and they are all equally important in my mind to efficiently manage a site that is in the top ten websites in the world, so I'm afraid I can't just pick "just one thing".

Question(s) from Worm That Turned

2. Hi, Technical 13. 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?

   I have thought about this a little, and am really not too concerned. Due to my unusually high amount of controversy on this project, as Rschen7754 puts it, these are all things I have dealt with quite a bit on wiki anyways. As I replied to Rschen7754's question 6, I grew up as a kid being bullied and tormented with constant insults on my abilities and not only threats, but physical violence against me. I'm now in my mid-thirties, and I'm comfortable with knowing what my own abilities are, and what others say about me is more of a representation of what kind of person they are more than anything. Besides, I hear you have cookies on the "Dark Side". ;)

No cookies. No t-shirt. And we're all pale from the lack of light. :| Good luck! Worm^TT(talk) 09:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Question from Nick

2. You have refused to answer a question asked by Hasteur and then removed a second question regarded as being disruptive by one of the Election Commissioners. Do you believe this behaviour is compatible with the expected transparency and accountability expected by the community. If elected, will you continue to ignore, delete or otherwise fail to answer questions which make you uncomfortable, or will you change your behaviour and answer any and all questions asked of you, no matter how you feel about them ?

   I refused to answer a duplicate question asked by Hasteur that I had already answered in Rschen7754's 2nd question, Rschen7754's 9th question, Elonka question, Ankit Maity's 1st question, all three questions from Biblioworm. Also, Hasteur's "question" appears to be less of a question and more of a provocative statement claiming that there are "sanctions" against me (I've never been taken to arbitration for there to be any sanctions against me), claiming I'm just here to collect user groups (which he's been told by Anne Delong is un-called-for in a similar claim), claiming I'm here to abuse toolsets (the discussion he links shows a majority of opposes and reluctant supports with calls for quick reinstatement of the toolset; more than 4 months ago and I've not requested the toolset back which defeats his claim I'm only here to collect user groups or I would have had it back three months ago), and some comment about being a failure (which, based on our interaction history, is nothing more than a poke with a sharp stick). His "second" question was exactly the same as his first question that was rephrased in a disruptive manner to try and game the system. In my replies to the eight questions I've linked above and a few other questions that don't directly relate to Hasteur's rephrasing of the questions already answered, I believe I've demonstrated a behavior that shows my transparency and willingness to answer questions which make me uncomfortable. I believe that I have answered all questions that have been asked (at least once, if not multiple times) and have declined to answer a duplicate question asked by an editor with whom there has been suggestions in general discussions by others that there should be an interaction ban in between us and I've requested of him as well. As I said in my response to him, if he has a legitimate new question that will add something productive, I would be happy to answer it.

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!

   I think it would be a progressive step towards a more transparent ArbCom, for the most part. I'm slightly concerned with the two "Emails sent to the list..." sections as I see the potential for private information improperly being released (even if only accidentally) in those cases.

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.

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?

   I have never attended any kind of Wikimeet or other off-line Wikipedia engagement. This is because there has never been one that I've been aware of in my local area. I've even attempted, twice, to coordinate such an event (Wikipedia:WikiProject Maine/messages/(in)activity levels and Wikinic, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Maine/Archive 1#The Great American Wiknic, and Wikipedia:Meetup/Augusta, ME/Wiknic/2013), but there was a lack of interest. Forgot to address if it would be different, and I'll answer that by saying that I don't think so; being an arb makes no difference on this.

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?

   As you may have guessed, my favorite is π.

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?

   I touched on both of those topics in Gamaliel's second question, and I am neither female nor LGBT. I don't see their position as any more challenging in real life experiences than the position of the physically inadept, straight, white child who wears glasses and has braces on their teeth who is mentally superior to many of the other children in their class and is introverted (AKA, the nerd). That's who I was growing up, but on Wikipedia (the Internet in general), I am just another person. Unless I disclose those things (which I have just done, again), no-one knows what I look like or what my preferences and beliefs are. Everyone has the opportunity on here to be just an editor and have their actions and ideas be based solely on merit alone. For me, it is all about merit and not personal traits, and while personal traits may help increase understanding of others positions in some cases, they are not a deciding factor in determining merit.