Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Kudpung/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

---

Question from SQL

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

   I don't know - certainly nothing 'recent' as far as I can remember. I don't keep a record of them and apart from IP vandals I very rarely do any blocks. Why? Do you know of some unblocks that I should be particularly proud of? I don't have much to do with blocking or unblocking anyway, unless it's to close a consensus at ANI as an univolved admin. BTW, SQL, if you have any further concerns about my answers, free free to state them here - there's no need to email me - I believe in transparency, it's very important at Arbcom. If I come across an unblock discussion I was in, I'll let you know.

   Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from 28bytes

2. Are you still boycotting Women in Red?

   Not actively, no. I never really carried out the threat, and I've never thought about it since, but I was furious. But you have to understand the semantics of 'boycott', it's the wrong word to use. A passive cease of activity is something entirely different. And if I were, it would be no loss (apart from my support) - not everyone supports it, mainly because a lot of people have probably never heard of the project. That said, if you really want to know - and of course you're dying to - I've been an active supporter of women's rights and social and professional equality since the age of 12 - and oddly as a straight male, LGBT - and still am. What I think is a shame however, especially where on Wikipedia we are all supposed to be nice to each other (which in reality we are not), is when proud women accuse such men of being misogynists. I believe there's a word for that: misandry. It's all a bit odd really.

Question from Praxidicae

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

   I'm not sure I understand the question (althought it's midnight here and I've now been on Wikipedis for 6 hours, no dinner, and just 2 cups of tea). How would functionaries and other advanced permission holders discussing Wikipedia and other Wikimedians (in otherwise good standing) with WMF banned editors? The only place I can think of where that would be technically possible (unless I've missed something) would be at Wikipediocracy, and I don't go near that cesspit. In case I have understood your question correctly, shouldn't it be obvious that functionaries should not be discussing such things with such people? What is it exactly that you want to know here? Unless you are obliquely relating to something you have actually experienced, I don't think I can help you with a full answer. I don't recall ever seeing your name anywhere. Were you one of the plaintiffs in the Framban issue or something?

   Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Leaky caldron

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

   Yes, it is something I recognise as extant. I don't know the full story or the extent, but having been a victim in the past of insult and harassement by certain highly prolific content contributors, I would say from my perspective that they appear to be treated with greater leniency than less prolific editors or editors who do more work in maintenance areas than strictly adding new content. With that said, if they were to come before Arbcom, they should naturally be treated like anyone else. If they have grossly violated WP:5P4, for example, they and the community should accept the consequences of the danger of losing an otherwise valuable contributor.

4. Why have you changed your views on reform of voting arrangements for Arbcom. Following you previous candidature in 2015 you said that there was "only 12 months to get it right"

   I don't know that I have changed my views. Moreover, I don't recall saying that 4 years ago. Is your question based on something I said in my current nomination statement? Perhaps you could provide a diff or two so that at least I can see it in its full and proper context.

Yes, of course. There was an extended discussion about issues which were raised in the course of that election. There are a couple in particular where you expressed considerable concern (for example voter guides and the mass-mailing) and appeared at the time to be enthusiastic about reform: [1] [2].

Thank you for reminding me of those two posts. It will encourage any curious potential voters at this election who are reading this, to look at them and understand that I haven't changed my views at all but that I did not in any way propose any suggestions for reform. Those comments were talk page comments and have no official bearing on the course of that election, but to be honest with you, I'm not a very good speech writer but seeing them today, I'm quite proud of what I said. Where I'm naturally disappointed however, is that like at RfA, the community is not prepared to propose and discuss any changes, so in the following 12 months 'they didn't get it right' - and they still haven't. And I don't see what it has to do with my candidature here and now. All I have said today is that I am not running on a platform for restructuring Arbcom from within. Those who got themselves elected on that basis, didn't last long. I have finished with changing things on Wikipedia. I've had some success, but what will change one way or another after this election, is where I will work in future on or for Wikipedia. I might go back to doing more outreach in Thai schools and colleges, for example. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Recalling a candidate's previous statements is precisely in scope and there is no "statute of limitations". You frequently draw reference to a seminal piece of work on RfA which you completed many years ago. If a candidate applying for high office has previously expressed a desire to change the franchise and campaign methods, it is legitimate, regardless what you did or didn't do then or intend or do not to intend to do now. It paints a picture of consistency, accuracy, reasoning & resolve. As does my next question.....

2. Until around 18 months ago you frequently referred to unnamed editors with who's approach you disagreed as "the anti-admin brigade". (Please don't ask for diffs :) ). Why have you stopped using that cliche?'

   I didn't notice that I had, but that would of course be a good thing if the hate and harassment that is meted out to admins has significantly dropped off over the last 18 months . But you keep bringing this 'anti admin brigade' thing up - I assume there is nothing about it that concerns you personally. I can't see what is has to do with this election, "statute of limitations"or not.

Thanks. Your edit summary states "last reply". Does that mean you decline to answer further questions?

Question from Gerda

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

   If I had been an Arb at that time, I probably would not have replied. I would most likely have been in discussion elsewhere with the rest of the Committee on how best to handle the situation based on the secret information. Hence the second part of your question does not apply as a) The discussion page got out of hand fairly quickly and rather than lose the plot, as I was not a concerned party or Arbcom member, I stopped following it and went back to my normal Wikipedia work. Therefore I don't know what the remedies under 2 are that you are referring to. However, if you were to provide a diff, I might look into it and see if I can, give you a more detailed answer.

4. We are on the proposed decision talk page. If you can't find the remedies concerning desysop on the proposed decision page, I can't vote for you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

   As far as I can see from a quick look, there were 5 different proposed solutions under number 2. There were different votes among the arbitrators in all 5 sub sections and not having followed it at the time, it would take me an hour to work out a reply for you. I cannot say now how I would have voted, I don't even have access to the privileged material. I don't believe question time at ACE is designed for gaining just one vote, Gerda, if it were, I would have to answer anything up to two thousand questions. These hustings are very public and also serve to aid the thousands of other voters to make up their minds. I'm sorry, but it looks as if I'm going to have to do without your vote ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

6. Could 2a be for you, yes or no? Is that simplified enough?

   Gerda, I don't like to be forced in to committing myself to an issue that I am not well enough informed about. However, there is a strong chance that I might have followed WTT, OR, and GW in making 2a my second choice. But please bear in mind that in absence of Einsicht in die Akten, there is no right or wrong answer to your question.

   Thank you, and sorry for the torture ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Carrite

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

   You may (or not) have noticed that I rarely comment on the Arbcom cases. I think there is generally enough commenting by non involved parties already without me chiming in - unless of course I feel very strongly about something. This is not to say that I don't follow the Arbcom cases, I do, but not with the same attention as someone who wants to influence the committee members in their decision. I'm more interested in fast forwarding to the results section. That means therefore, that it is not easy, or perhaps not even appropriate, for me to identify and state what is the biggest problem. That said, and it's almost certainly not the answer you are looking for, but possibly the many absences and/or people jumping ship is one of the major concerns - particularly due to the reduction in the number of seats, or people accepting a seat on the Committee and later realising they had bitten off more than they could chew (which is natural and human for many people). That has been partially remedied with this year's election, and time will tell if the cases are handled in a more timely manner and with more cohesion between the committee members.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754

2. Is there anything that you would handle differently about your resysop request and the behavior mentioned in it (both your comments to Ajraddatz and GorillaWarfare)? --Rschen7754 19:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

   Not at all. Despite speculation, by coincidence the the Wikibreak was due to personal reasons and none of the business of Wikipedia editors, admins, or stewards. The resysop request was purely procedural and what ensued, with all the personal attacks, was totally out of order.

4. Arbitrators have to work with functionaries across Wikimedia on occasion. Do you believe that you could work with Ajraddatz (and other stewards) or GorillaWarfare, given the context above? --Rschen7754 19:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

   Absolutely. The context is a non-context if one would take the trouble to go right back to what sparked it all off. If you have some lingering issues with me, I don't even know who you are. But I don't bear grudges, I've worked in highly collaborative environments all my life - sometimes people attack you out of the blue for no reason, but you have to continue working with them if they are good at their job, and things blow over quite quickly. The irony is, I was attacked for trying to be friendly.

6. I do not believe either of my questions were answered, so I will ask some follow-up questions. Do you believe that this was an attempt to intimidate a steward? Or that this was a threat to oppose his confirmation?

   It was an attempt to demonstrate that stewards are not above the rules.

8. Do you believe that what Ajraddatz wrote is a fair critique of yourself? In many situations where he is being criticized, Kudpung makes accusations of personal attacks or harassment, and doubles down on whatever he is being criticized for doing. His accusations towards me are not true - criticizing someone's actions does not automatically constitute a personal attack, nor does criticizing two separate actions (one directed at others, one directed at myself) constitute harassment or hounding. Accusations of serious behavioural infractions have an obvious chilling effect on any attempt at discussion or criticism of his actions or behaviour. --Rschen7754 01:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

   It is not. He had not fully investigated what he was talking about and simply shot from the hip. His action or statement are the chilling effects and I was amazed to witness and/or be the target of such behaviour from someone in such high office. Plus the fact that there were no such 'behavioural infractions' on my part - I wasn't the one who got blocked for misbehaving.

Questions from Newslinger

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

   It wouldn't. Is this a trick question? Paid editing is dealt with by specific policy (although it's riddled with loopholes) concerning users who edit for pay or reward, while (from the DS policy): discretionary sanctions is a special system that creates an acceptable and collaborative editing environment for our most contentious and strife-torn articles. So you see, one is about editors and the other is about content.

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

   None, because the Committee cannot make policy. 2FA will never be made mandatory, not by the WMF nor by local consensus, because if it were, it cannot technically be adopted by every user in every country. To impose it would create yet another WMF vs Community constitutional crisis.

Question from Peacemaker67

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

   I think it was perfectly acceptable. Considering the huge importance of the topic and Wikipedia's claims of wanting to get its encyclopedic content right, sometimes in special cases, it is better to avoid the mayhem that often transmogrifies at ANI right from the start, and have the issue discussed and decided in an orderly fashion by a trusted team of experienced users. Non admin users can still have their say on the Arbcom case if they really want to. The German war effort was such a case. It was accepted by 9 committee members with only one dissent, so they are unlikely to have all been wrong. The outcome was, in my opinion, correct and it was what I expected. So considering your concerns for it not being first handled at ANI, I submit that in this particular case, the end justified the means.

Question from Banedon

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

   I can't say that I have followed all Arbcom cases over a period of many years in sufficient detail that I would have formed an opinion that might, just might have been a dissent.

2. If the answer to the above is no, how would you have voted on certain remedies that split the current committee? Feel free to pick your own remedies; otherwise you can also choose from these: [3], [4], [5]. (Feel free to answer this question as well even if the answer to the above is "yes", although it likely won't be necessary.)

   I don't think it would be expedient for me, ex post facto, to provide an opinion at this stage. That said, of the arbcom cases that recently roused my curiosity sufficiently enough to follow them more closely, my vote would probably have matched the outcome. More important for me is going forward and based on my long experience of Wikipedia as an active admin, contributing my considered opinion on future issues and I'm running in this election because I believe I have the ability to do that intelligently. However, I'm slightly confused over the examples you cite. As far as I can see, they were far from splitting the committee or even lop-sided. There may indeed have been some dissent among the members, but by and large all points were carried by a healthy majority.

2. Are these your final answers? Because right now, based on these answers, I have absolutely no idea how you are going to vote on different issues in Arbcom. I can't tell what you approve of or what you disapprove of, and why. About the only thing you've said that I can use is that you think the ends justify the means (per your answer to Peacemaker67's question), but that is not very helpful because you will not have access to a crystal ball that tells you how remedies will work out when you vote (if you are elected). I need to know what you value, what influences your thinking, your position on matters, etc, otherwise I have nothing to base a vote on.

   That is quite correct, Banedon, there is indeed no crystal ball, every case will be handled on a per-case basis as it comes, hence if I decline to support or criticise how previous committees or their members have addressed the cases put to them which I did not follow in detail, that is quite clearly my prerogative.
   Referring to a question being posed of other candidates by user:Iffy, I would add that the vote by Opabinia regalis against the 6 supports certainly raises a very relevant point: 'We don't desysop people for isolated errors of judgment made in good faith.' However, I really can't say how I would have voted because my opinion would be clouded by a closed case that I was not part of. It is not a fair assumption that every candidate would have been following all Arbcom cases in anticipation of the majority of questions which are all on the lines of 'How would you have voted?' or 'Was the Arbcom outcome correct?' I have therefore answered your questions as best I can. Other questioners have received answers that even go beyond the detail they expected. It's not a matter of gaining one vote out of the 2,300 or so that will be cast - you are well aware that ACE question time is very public - some voters will decide based on the appropriateness of the questions users have asked and the quality of the answers. It is therefore inaccurate to suggest that 'what you value, what influences your thinking, your position on matters' with my nomination statement, the answers to the other user questions, and my overall experience and editing history are not sufficient to provide you or the average voter with enough background to base their votes on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from WBG

2. Arbitration decisions are invariably criticized and this criticism is often expressed in very strong tones, aimed at individual arbitrators . How will you respond to such criticism? Do you think it will it affect your ability to remain objective?

   As a 'front-line' admin of as an editor in the vanguard of projects that have their supporters and detractors, I am used to taking criticism, both of the justified kind, and of the kind that is intended to intimidate, belittle, and drive me away from the project, and as you can see from the way I handle these questions and the ones at ACE2015, I will not kowtow to anyone just to get their vote, or to pretend that they are 'of course' in the right and I am in the wrong. If I am elected, I will show the side of my character that results in success at RfCs I initiate or largely facilitate: cool, calm, polite, and objective. I rarely make errors of judgement and when I do, as we all do, they are minor.

4. Over this page, all of the arbitrators refused to engage a multitude of queries and concerns from multiple longstanding members of the community, despite the case being entirely situated on public evidence.
   Do you feel that the displayed behavior abides by general community expectations of arbitrator conduct? Some have since stated that the concurrently running FRAMGATE meant that they had to pay less time to this case; in such a situation, how would you have tackled this case?

   I was not an arbcom member, and I did not actively follow the case. I can therefore not make any ex post facto judgement on the Committee's actions or those of the individual Committee members. I'm only really interested in seeing forward towards, as I have said in my statement,: I simply want to contribute towards making the process as expedient and as equitable as possible.

6. Your fellow candidate, Gadfium writes:- Arbs should be highly responsive to community concerns on the talk pages of cases and that anyone who expresses an honest and constructive opinion should be taken seriously. Do you agree with the premises of these statements?

   Yes, but with emphasis on honest and constructive .

8. Can you provide one diff of a well reasoned argument where you disagreed with the majority and took an unpopular view? The more recent, the more unpopular, the better.

   No. I can't think of any. I have a fairly high edit count and that would be to ask me to find a needle in a haystack. Such situations are however likely to have been numerous, but my comments on most discussions usually reflect the final consensus. One larger RfC comes to mind where my views were unpopular among the opposers was the one about notability for high schools; the RfC ended in a summing up which is still considered today by many to be unclear.

10. Nearly every case, that are being brought before the committee, involves skirting of the civility policy in some way or the other, that may not be always bright-line violations on a per se basis. The only mechanisms, that current arbitrators are using to combat with the issue, are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. Have you thought/devised of any new but more optimal way to solve this issue?

    You apparently follow Arbcom cases much more closely than I do ;) No, I have not 'thought/devised of any new but more optimal way to solve this issue' - as my nomination speech already states: 'if I am elected, I have no designs on reforming the Arbcom, I simply want to contribute towards making the process as expedient and as equitable as possible.' . While the Committee is free to structure or streamline their internal workflow, the actual scope of the Committee's work is best discussed and decided by the broader community.

Thanks, in advance, for your answers. ∯WBG^converse 09:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from WereSpielChequers

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

   No, none whatsoever. The very idea defies common decency. Of course it would not be legitimate to effect such a block - in any circumstances, not just in the Framban case. In courts in developed countries, a judge makes it clear in his summing up what the defendant is being punished for and what he can do to avoid it happening again - and there is usually a right of appeal. Arbcom is neither a High Court nor a Star Chamber, but it is a better committee if it lets the defendants clearly understand why they are being punished.

   Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer. ϢereSpielChequers 04:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Collect

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

   Yes.

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

   Yes

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

   Yes. But arbitrators who offer their own evidence should probably best recuse themselves from the voting.

Questions from Cassianto

2. What are your thoughts on people making uncivil, personal attacks on productive editors who have been blocked, for whatever reason, and who have no right of reply?

   I don't believe uncivil, personal attacks are justified, and if you are suggesting that I would deliberately do the same, consider the words productive editors who have been blocked - a blocked editor, especially an indef'd one, cannot possibly be productive and there must be some good reason why they are or were blocked, or are evading not only their block, but deliberately violating a very specific pre-block topic ban in an attempt to deliberately create drama - at which they were quite successful until someone twigged who it was. And as far as I know, I have never blocked any of the regulars at FA, and never knowingly been uncivil to a user that was doing the right thing - or even the wrong thing. You'll see from my candidate statement, if you have had the grace to read it, that that I sometimes call a spade a spade, but I stop far short of the kind of incivility, PA , harassment, and casting aspersions that gets people blocked. In fact as far as I know, of the 1,690 accounts I have blocked - that's a paltry number compared to many admins - only four or five were registered accounts and they were blatant spammers. The rest were all IP trolls and vandals on a spree [6].

"if you have had the grace to read it, that that [sic] I sometimes call a spade a spade, but I stop far short of the kind of incivility, PA , harassment, and casting aspersions that gets people blocked." You may think you're being big, brave and justifiably outspoken against a productive, blocked editor by calling them "a troll", but that is not the kind of behaviour that is becoming of an arbitrator. They are unable to answer for themselves and it is cowardly behaviour, on your part, knowing that they can't reply to your PA. It is a subjective view that Eric is "a troll" and it is not calling a "spade a spade"; it is being unnessersarily provocative. Cassianto^Talk 22:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I did not call Eric Corbett a troll. Whatever I think about him, I keep my thoughts to myself. If you are confusing the issue with a certain Dr Horncastle, may be our potential voters should read this. - all the way through to the bottom of the page I think you ought to consider retracting that claim before people reading this believe you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes you did. Horncastle was a sock of Eric's, or do you now not believe that to be true? Cassianto^Talk 08:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

2. To settle disputes, in your opinion, is it better to build bridges by engaging in the art of civil discussion, or burn them by making unfounded accusations of personal attacks and then suppressing discussion by banning the other party from talk pages?

   It depends upon the manner in which a dispute was engendered and whether or not it was with the specific intent of causing controversy [7]. There are two issues here which you might wish to take into consideration: it is generally considered fine for an editor to politely ask a user refrain from posting on his talk page (and it's something I have extremely rarely done), and if that wish is not respected and is followed up by them going elsewhere to continue their harassment through a back door, it's not very nice and might not bode well for a user with a very long block log. Secondly, it's almost taboo to refactor another user's post in the deliberate hope of raising his ire, then trying other tactics when that didn't work.

I don't know what the law is in Thailand, but in the U.K., and you'll know this, being an ex-pat, the term is fairly obvious. For there to be a harassment there needs to be an understanding by the harasser that they know, or ought to know, that their conduct is harassing, and that that harassing occurs on at least two occasions. Your link, for those who wish to read it, shows you being confronted about your personal attack against Eric Corbett, and then you banning me from your talk page when I dare to confront you about it. As you told me to leave, I did, but had the "good grace" to offer you a right of reply in my talk page, which you ignored. At no point did you tell me you didn't wish to engage with me, only to leave your talk page. So I'm confused as to what you found to be harassing? That is not how to do debate. That is not how to build bridges. That is the shutting down of legitimate debate and the burning of a bridge when the going gets tough. That is not the kind of behaviour that is becoming of an arbitrator, is it? Cassianto^Talk 22:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Where I live is none of your business here and is entirely irrelevant. You had to be asked twice to leave the thread you started with a clear personal attack - and were asked politely each time. You quite deliberately attempted to fan the flames by coming back again. What I did was to legitimately close the discussion and walk away, leaving you to enjoy a last word behind my back somewhere else. Now please try not to use ACE question time as a platform to continue your grievances. Being a prolific FA contributor is not a free pass to be uncivil, make personal attacks, and distort the facts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Let me remind you that anything you decide to put up on your user page is my business, together with the businesses of the countless others who click onto your page. If you don't want such information spoken about then don't put it up on your user page, it really is very simple. And it takes me, a mere minion, to advice an administrator and potential Arbitrator this? There you go again, diffs of these "personal attacks" please? Or is this your cryptic way of telling me that this conversation is now over? All you have to do is say and without making such allegations. Cassianto^Talk 08:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Let me remind you of a few sentences (among many others) that you may have seen somewhere: combative and incendiary behavior, failing to disengage, Personal attacks or harassment. Or perhaps you would care to explain what the real axe is here, given the context, that you are trying to grind through question time at ACE. Is it something to do with the owner of the longest block log in history for incivility which users here will read with astonishment ? Now have we finished here? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The only thing that is astonishing, Mr Kudpung, is your double standards, which the same people (here) will be able to see. Still not answering my questions. Not surprisingly, I'll be opposing your candidacy. Good day! Cassianto^Talk 17:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

2. How important is it, for an arbitrator, to leave old arguments at the door and being impartial and balanced when future arbitrating could compromise your position?

   I don't fully understand the question, maybe it got truncated when you pasted it, but I'll try to answer what I think it means. I naturally believe that an arbitrator who has had a contentious involvement with a user should recuse themselves from the case if that user comes before the committee whether as plaintif or defendant. What future arbitrating would compromise my position? What position? I am reminded of a very recent and emphatic comment by a sitting arb: 'These roles do not make me more important, do not make my opinion worth more and do not give me more authority over every little thing.'

You ask "what permission". Your position as an arbitrator. I'll give you one out of three at least, as the rest of this question has been answered satisfactorily. I just hope you stick to it if you get elected. Cassianto^Talk 22:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Piotrus

2. Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [8]. in which I concldued that "A practical recommendation for Wikipedia in particular, and for other communities with collegiate courts in general, is that when electing members to their dispute resolution bodies, those communities would do well to pay attention to how much time the prospective future judges can devote to this volunteering task." In other words, may Arbitrators become inactive due to real world reasons (family, job) and this is not an exception but a rule, repeated time and again throughout ArbCom history. Do you think there is any practical way to deal with this, such as, for example, asking Arbitrators to obligatorily describe, in their election process, how they plan to ensure they have sufficient free time to devote to this activity?

   (First off, I've had to repair the missing parts of your question syntax. I'm sure it was a forgivable copy/paste typo). I hope you will forgive me for not reading your research paper, which I'm sure is very interesting, firstly because I do not spend a lot of time reading off-Wiki stuff about Wikipedia, but secondly, I certainly have an aversion to being asked to familiarise myself with something that is behind a $36 paywall. That said, I do not belittle for a moment an editor who has time to rack up a quarter of a million edits and write research papers; there's even a lot I could write about Wikipedia through my publishers, but my time is taken up with regular Wikipedia editing and maintenance tasks. So this is all a bit about your question. Obviously in any volunteer environment whether online in a collaborate open source project or out in the jungle building schools with palm fronds and training the teachers, volunteers cannot be made subject to military or corporate discipline and time keeping. If they were, no one would volunteer. I admit that those of us who are volunteers at the local town fire department, or other out-of-hours voluntary service, or such as school governor, parent-teacher association, etc, are expected to dedicate the time they have signed on for and be on call and go to meetings, and it is not is unreasonable.

   However, Wikipedia is rather a different kettle of fish. First we get no thanks or recompense in any way whatsoever for our work while the WMF enjoys salaries and junkets, and if we are admins or arbs, we have to put up with a lot, really a lot, of abuse and insults from totally anonymous people, many of whom are just looking for chances to pretend they are feeling insulted. And it doesn't stop there, it comes in the email, it comes on IRC and it comes in tsunami-sized waves on cesspits such as WO. But still some of us are stupid enough to persevere and even run in elections like these where some users even post new attacks masquerading as questions, and it's even worse on Arbcom, so it's understandable if one wishes to take a break and get over some of the nasty stuff. Fortunately, your questions are among the most polite and reasonable and justify a reasonable answer even if it's a long one.

   If by now anyone is wondering, I could devote up to about 24 hours a week to Arbcom by relinquishing routine page patrolling, other maintenance tasks, and general gnoming. I sincerely hope however, that it won't come completely to that if I am elected. I am retired - I have the time. In RL I own a busy company with competent staff and labour. I do a lot of micromanaging, but I don't have to. My kids are grown up and have kids of their own in university, and my home is relatively calm and I can sit here in 32ºC in November beside my pool and edit WP on a real computer. However, there are times when people of my age might suddenly get rushed to hospital, or fly across the world on a mercy dash for friends and loved ones. Something like this happened to me three years ago when my father passed away. Nearly two years ago I was mercilessly chastized by trolls and and desysoped admins for asking for a purely procedural restoration of my admin tools after returning from urgent surgery in hospital - they just had to try and find some reason that I might have handed my tools in under a cloud. I keep my promises and I've never let anyone down on Wikipedia in all these years, but I have an open ticket on Emirates to the UK and I can never know when I might have to use it. For several years, a couple of highly trusted Wikipedians have been briefed on what to do if I go AWOL, but I always put a message on my talk page if I'm going to be offline for a few days - and generally it is only a few days.

   Absence from the Committee is a real problem and that's why we have increased the number of seats this year. I have volunteered here the information about my time which you suggest arbcom candidates should. I think this is the least Arbcom candidates can do, and they should not run in this election if they are aware that they are very likely to have extended absences or jump ship because they find they have bitten off more than they could chew. One suggestion, and I think I'm not alone in this, would be to have an even bigger Arbcom, one with different departments that people can choose to work in while they can naturally overlap in all areas. This might suit, for example, users who like to work on cases and draft stuff, and users who don't mind hacking away at the torrent of email sewage, or those who like the challenge of handling unblock/unban requests. Or those who like to be on the discussions with the WMF. Just ideas.

Sorry about the syntax issue. I think the missing part is the |A=? Hopefully it won't prove to be too much of a trouble. As for my paper, I thought it is open access (at least it shows for me and I don't think I am logged in). But you can always get a free copy through Library Genesis (I think it may also be on my academia.edu). Regarding other issues, thank you for your thoughtful reply. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, I will certainly try to get hold of your paper. It's a topic that does interest me. But I won't be spending $36 on it ;p) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Right. @Kudpung: Neither would I. I again mention LG, where my paper is available. As as scholar I use LG quite often, since my university does not always subscribe to all databases, and if I wanted to pay for every paper that may be relevant to my research (most of the time you don't know if it is relevant or not until you at least skim through it, abstracts are rarely sufficient) I'd be penniless by the end of a semester... let me know if you have any problems using LG, but it is really very simple, requires no registration, at best you need a captcha, and even that not always. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, thank you so much for the links. It was fascinating reading and confirmed a lot (but not all) of what I already assumed. The rest was essential new knowledge. It should be compulsory reading for prospective Arbcom candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Gadfium

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

   I think anyone reading these questions and answers is more interested in what editors will do if they are elected. What they do if they don't isn't really a consideration, or it isn't for me as a voter. I think perhaps 'people have considerable difficulty resuming normal editing life after an unsuccessful run' needs a citation. It is very true of people whose character has been mercilessly assassinated at RfA, and if forced I can come up with some examples, but I don't think losing a ACE is a big deal - for one, there are always fewer seats than candidates anyway, so not everyone is going to get the job even if, as I did in 2015, they get over the required 50%.

   Anyway, here goes: I'll do the same as I always have for over 10 years, and fairly regularly with hardly a break: giving talks about Wikipedia in Thai schools and colleges, keeping a eye on NPR and AfC, PERM, copy editing, translating, very, very little blocking and sanctioning except for vandals, perhaps helping out at ANI - but only if there's a backlog or a case that other admins are unwilling to close; following and commenting on important debates - especially about notability and deletion criteria; maybe comment on a few Arbcom cases but certainly not on every one; maybe get back to some heavy lifting at COIN, and hoping, still hoping, that one of the days RfA will become a friendly place and attract more candidates. This is not my first run for Arbcom. Nothing has changed in my habits in the years since my 2015 run. As I live here, and as I have significant experience in conference organisation, I intend to be as active around Wikimania 2020 as possible, perhaps with a focus on meet-and-greet and logistics - we'll see.

Question from Scribolt

2. I'd like to follow up on your reply to 28bytes, as I think this will tell us more on how you will approach cases involving possible discrimination as a possible arbitrator. I am struggling with your use of the term misandry, you must know more than I. To educate us all, do you believe:

• Any member of the LGBT community who describes an editor or their words as misogynistic when they are not, is a misandrist?
• The particular editor in question is a misandrist?
• The particular editor's comments in question were misandrististic?
• Or were you referring to something else entirely as misandry?

I am sure you chose your words carefully on such a high profile page that is designed to communicate your beliefs and compenticies to the community, so I would like to know under what circumstances you feel on wiki behaviour can be labelled and therefore disregarded as stemming from a hatred or prejudice against men.

1. I chose my words carefully. I think my response to 28bytes was sufficiently lucid. I have explained my personal beliefs and views of a group or groups of people in the changing climate of opinion. And when I was 12, society was very, very far away from today's climate. I don't recall having called any particular editor a misogynist or a misandrist. I say many things on Wikipedia, including referring indirectly to some vandalism or highly disruptive accounts as trolls, for example, but never directed at a single , identifiable person. There are perhaps no rules against putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 4, so if you personally consider that I have, it's highly subjective, and perhaps circumstantial evidence and without clear substantiation it's probably an opinion best kept to yourself. There is a lot of imbalance of gender and minority group treatment on Wikipedia - the project and the media never ceases to discuss it, and it never improves, but if by chance it's the word misandry which you do not fully understand, then I'm afraid you'll have to look it up. I think perhaps there's also a difference between educate and inform, but forgive me if I sound pedantic or patronising - I'm a professional lexicographer and educator ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Lepricavark

2. What was your end goal in making this comment in response to the way that another editor described you in their voter guide?

   I think my end goal was designed to point out that comments relating to ACE candidates are just as liable to possible sanctions for personal attacks as anywhere else. Or has this become like RfA where such behaviour is tolerated with impunity? If users are demanding impeccable behaviour from Arbcom members, perhaps they could exercise some themselves. Under normal circumstances such behaviour is possibly blockworthy, or at least a walk to ANI, but as you are well aware, candidates (like admins) are not strictly allowed to defend themselves. I chose my words carefully. There was no PA or incivility in my comment, nor even an incendiary attempt to create drama. I am reminded of a comment on your talk page 'While I disagree, it's obvious that you are acting in good faith and I agree that no further discussion is necessary' . It works both ways. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Volunteer Marek

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

   Don't apologise - there is always time to reply to reasonable questions. The short answer is "I probably might".

   Your draft does however need a lot of work. For an RfC of that kind to be credible, it needs to cite clear examples in its preamble, otherwise it might look like a personal rant. Other resistance to it would come from users who will say: 'Haven't the arbs got enough to do already?', and there would concerns that a spokesperson or the designated person might not be reporting objectively. I'm not sure Arbcom actually needs more exposure (not to be confused with 'transparency') because as I said elsewhere in these questions, at least cases are handled by a team of editors with experience and much less by a medley of voters and commenters on a disorganised noticeboard where those that should are often reluctant to participate and/or close.
   The Signpost already offers a monthly write up of Arbcom activity, but that may be a subjective report based on the columnist's perception of what is important enough to review. Remains to decide on a venue for it - perhaps a new subpage at Arbcom.

   Yes, I think it has the making of something and I might even work with you together on it, although I have stated that if I were to be elected (note the subjunctive), I would not be actively seeking to change the way the committee works from within. Those who have tried became disspirited and didn't last long. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from GorillaWarfare

2. Despite your claims to Scribolt that you are not referring to any particular editor, it's pretty clear that you are referring to me when you say What I think is a shame however, especially where on Wikipedia we are all supposed to be nice to each other (which in reality we are not), is when ''[[Gay pride|proud]]'' women accuse such men of being misogynists. I believe there's a word for that: ''[[misandry]]''. Why did you mention (and emphasize) that I am queer?

   I did not refer to you. It was a generalisation. You'll have to work harder to twist my words than you did in 2018 and attacked me and causing a minor drama - not particularly appropriate for an arbitrator. I have supported LGBT and women's rights for 58 years and come across many different types, and sadly I have come across some gay women who are misandrists. If you identify with that, and if I'm not mistaken, you do in fact identify, since December 2018 at least as belonging to a minority group it's up to you, and I certainly have no issues with that. That said, although I am thick skinned, I could claim that your question is a renewed attempt at the harassement for which you were once blocked. I think it's high time that you buried your hatchet, don't you? You're possibly anticipating that my bid for a place on Arbcom will fail, that's why you are speculating on the effect of your belated question which in fact I'm under no obligation to answer because I see it as baiting. However, if I do get elected, which in view of the sudden increase of candidates at the 11th hour is less likely, you and I will have to work together, and if you continue to foster your attitude towards me, it might not make life particularly easy for either of us where we would have a common task to share.

While I'm disappointed that you chose to double down on the odd claim that you're not referring to me (are the lights growing dim in here?) and not answer my question about the relevance of a woman's sexuality when she describes a man as misogynist, I do appreciate you answering at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare It depends which one of us is actually doubling down, doing the gaslighting (BTW a PA), and using ACE question time for rekindling an old feud which you started yourself at me out of the blue for doing nothing other than extending a hand of collegiality and defending a female colleague against misogyny, and don't seem to be able to get over it. It's a bit odd. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Robert McClenon

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

   There are no defined principles or hard and fast rules. Each Committee member personally decides whether to accept or decline on a case-by-case basis. Generally any cases that can be handled by the community, should be, but a review of the questions and answers in this election campaign will reveal that there are exceptions where a case could and should be handled by the more dignified process at Arbcom, i.e. a team of specifically elected 'judges' rather than the free-for-all that often dominates at ANI. Noting also that the Committee can also examine evidence that for genuine reasons cannot be made publicly available.

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

   My opinion on this is not important. I was not involved in, nor did I comment much on the case other than to state as I often have, that much of the work of the WMF should be devolved to the communities. I contend that salaried employees are not necessarily more competent and/or more expert than people we have among the thousands of volunteers. Our advantage is that at least our Admins and Arbs are selected following scrutiny by the Community, whereas we have no right of decision as to whom is to be privileged with salaried employment and the perks that go with it. My answers to other user questions above will elaborate, and the the statement issued yesterday by the WMF will tell you the rest.

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

   Please see my nomination statement. It already answers your question directly.

Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

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

   One of the worst scandals of undeclared paid editing involved a senior WMF staffer and en.Wiki admin! Undisclosed paid editing, in my opinion, as is all paid editing (with the possible exception of WIR), a violation of policy and/or exploitation the goodwill of the thousands of volunteers who have contributed to building and maintaining this encyclopedia without any reward or recompense whatsoever - and ironically, to add insult to injury, we are expected do do a lot of the work the WMF staff are paid for and finance our own intercontinental travel to WMF conferences. As to the second part of your question, the TOU is a Foundation policy. Arbcom does not make policy, and generally the Committee will refer any cases back to the community and only get involved if and when the community is unable to resolve an issue through its own powers and those of the admins. Arbcom's role can only then be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Question from Grillofrances

2. What is the single thing you'd like to improve the most in ArbCom?