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

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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.

What originally led you to join Wikipedia? What do you do on the site on a day-to-day basis?
I joined to bring articles to a higher level of quality and referencing, but soon found myself working mainly with the borderline articles; rewriting marginal ones, and arguing to keep those that were acceptable;and, after I became an administrator, deleting the hopeless. As it worked out, I've done about ten times as many deletions as rescues. Lately I've been concentrating on AfC and Draft space, trying to give proper advice to new editors.
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?
Not all views are reconcilable, but most can be brought to a reasonable compromise. A great deal can be done by keeping discussions civilized and to the point. However, sometimes there is no consensus or compromise that will be accepted by everyone, and there are some principles which should not be compromised.
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've watched them all, but rarely commented--there are normally all too much commenting, and not enough thinking. Some cases can go quickly, but the ones that go slowest are usually the ones that are the hardest to devise an acceptable solution.
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?
Subject experts are needed at Wikipedia, but they need to prove their expertise by the quality of their edits and arguments. If they try to rely on authority alone, they will need to either learn or ways or return to working in more conventional environments. The difficulty is in explaining this to them politely.
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?
All active admins make errors, and they need to learn to admit them and correct them. It may be necessary for ArCom to deal with the others, as a distinct group with accepted authority. There's currently no place in the community which would work as an equivalent, though it would be good to find a way for the more straightforward cases.
Serving as a functionary (even more so as an arbitrator) often means dealing with unpleasant issues, including but not limited to helping those dealing with doxing and real-world harassment and communicating with WMF about legal issues. In addition to onwiki and offwiki harassment, functionaries have often had false accusations made against themselves, frequently in venues where they are unable to defend themselves or where the accusers are unwilling to listen to reason. What effects would both of these have on your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
I've experience at OTRS & deletions. The goal is to at least try to have people understand why we can't meet their desires. Some will never understand, but most will, if explained with understanding. They may think we're wrong and peculiar, but they will realize they need to accept it.
What is your familiarity with Wikimedia-wide policies, such as the CheckUser policy and the Oversight policy, as well as the Privacy policy? What is your opinion as to how Wikimedia (staff and volunteers) handles private information?
These policies of of critical importance, and essentially everyone agrees with their fundamental statement. The difficult lies in interpreting and applying them. I don't foresee working with Checkuser, but I probably will with Oversight. OTRS very much involves privacy; I'm used to working within its rules.
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?
This is a continual shift. At present, the community is very good with discrete disputes, but not long-running feuds. And there will be some things where people are too divided to permit solution at AN/I or similar venues. The specific nature of Arbcom is that it must find some sort of solution.

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

Question from Gerda Arendt

Thanks for being ready to offer your service! Last year, I asked 3 questions, this year it's only one: imagine you are an arb, how would you comment in this case? Hint: you don't have to evaluate a whole case, just one request. My so far favourite comment has four words ;)
I know the case. The particular issue at this point was whether a single technical violation of a (I my opinion totally reasonable) topic ban justified more drastic action. Normally I would say not--we should not pounce on single errors. But in this case the previous history indicated that the single violation could quite possibly be seen as evidence of intent to defy the topic ban altogether. Myself, I would still have waited for another violation. I tend to believe in giving people a last chance. Eventually, of course , one does need to act, or the sanction is meaningless.
Do you think it was a technical violation?
It's more important to decide if it indicated an intent to test the limits and continue as far as possible.
You said something about intent. - Do you think the edit was a technical violation? - When you said "the sanction is meaningless", did you mean "the restriction is meaningless"?
I do not know whether it was an innocent correction that did not fall under the exact wording of the topic ban, or an attempt to exploit the exact wording of the topic ban to test its limits. As bans are preventative, intent matters, difficult thought it may be to judge.
Intent is not my question, and I don't think intent can be judged. (I could imagine various intents, including find out how soon a warning follows an edit, predictably so.) - My question is if you see the formatting as a technical violation? (You may have seen that an arb who sat in the case doesn't.)
It's a question of wikilawyering about the meaning: whether taking material intended as an infobox but not formatted as such, and formatting it to be a proper infobox is a violation of a restriction against making an infobox. The abstract question can be argued equally logically in either direction. If we're going to follow legal appellate procedure, and look at the opinions of the individual arbs at the time, Carcharoth said the intent was to "leave Andy free to contribute to maintaining infoboxes (making technical changes)" and Silk Tork corrected his own wording of "editing" inboxes to "adding" infoboxes. From this it would be probably be the best decision to resolve the ambiguity by saying that this was not prohibited because the original arbs if they had thought about this particular possibility would not have wanted to prohibit it. But I will also note that both of these editors would have preferred another remedy, which was banning Andy. What I personally would do is simple: I have definite opinions on the subject of infoboxes, that they are useless if not uniform, and I would have recused from the entire case.
Thank you. Leaves only open if you meant "restriction" when you said "sanction" in the first answer. If not please explain which sanction.

Questions from Collect

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?
A case should be opened when something needs to re done within the purview of the Committee. What needs to be might be a re-statement of principles, or an interpretation of them, without any sanctions on individuals. Most cases, however, are not of this nature, and call for at least an admonishment.
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?
It depends on the situation. The Committee should make a judgment about what needs to be done to resolve the matter based on the total information. This may well include things not considered at the prior attempts at dispute resolution.
Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?
Careful consideration of all the material is always necessary.
"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?
Both at Arb Com and elsewhere, Wikipedia tries for some degree of consistency, though it does not strictly follow precedent.
Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?
WP:FIVEPILLARS is an excellent statement of the fundamental principles of the project.
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?
The basic principles of BLP are well accepted at Wikipedia. The application to specific cases will often raise difficult moral questions, and the mere statement that something is subject to BLP does not necessarily supersede all other possible considerations.
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?
If by "faction" is meant a a group of Wikipedia editors with a common commitment to some outside cause of principle, they can in some cases represent a significant challenge toWP:NPOV. The term has also be used for editors with a similar view about practices or guidelines at Wikipedia, but these are usually well balanced by the general community

Thank you Collect (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from EllenCT

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?
All issues regarding editing behavior at WP are at least potentially within the scope of the committee
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?
I generally find it extremely useful to see what the actual issue is. It clarifies the subsequent behavior.
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?
My experience is that the Reliable Sources Noticeboard does a very good job of dealing with this sort of issue. The right course of action depends on the details, which are usually best considered there. For example, a source good to justify one statement may not actually justify another. There is also scope for concern about how a source is used: it is unfortunately sometimes the case that an editor will quote or summarize out of context, or even with the best intentions but without sufficient knowledge of the context.
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?
Each source must be considered on its merits. Sources with commercial connectionss can be good or not for particular matters, just like all other sources. Again, the RSN almost always can resolve these issues, and the mechanism of doing so is, like everywhere else on WP, the consensus of uninvolved editors.

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gamaliel

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?
Different views on what constitutes incivility have so far prevented action by wither the community of the Committee. I consider the present situation unsatisfactory, but the route to improvement is not obvious. Change must come from the community, perhaps encouraged or guided by the Committee.
Wikipedia has a undeniable gender gap in terms of who contributes to Wikipedia and what topics are covered. Do you think this is a significant problem for Wikipedia? Why or why not? What, if anything, can and should the Committee do to address this?
The problem is not unsolvable: for example, the 2014 WikiConference USA in NYC had approximately 50:50 participation. I'm at least equally concerned by disparate participate of various ethnic and socioeconomic groups,at least in the US. But these are problems for the community & the Foundation, not directly for the Committee.

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Everyking

How do you feel about the ArbCom's practice of deciding cases through private deliberation? Would you push for greater transparency, up to the point of holding all discussions on-wiki, so long as sensitive personal information is not revealed? Would you be prepared to make a personal pledge to make all of your own comments in public, unless sensitive personal information is involved? Everyking (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable consideration of difficult matters requires some degree of private consultation. Most decisions are in some sense a compromise, and these can be much harder to reach in public. Despite this, the Committee has in the past been very open about disagreements between the members, and I would expect this to continue.

Elsewhere on Wikipedia, decisions are reached through discussion on-wiki. This includes many "difficult matters". Do you feel that doing so is appropriate? If so, what is the difference? Everyking (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is the greater degree of responsibility here as the final decision making body, and the need for more careful consideration. We have all seen what such discussions at AN/I and RFC(U) can degenerate into, and their almost total uselessness for complex matters, or matters where there are pressure groups within WP. However, when decisions are challenged, I think it would sometimes be possible for ArbCom to be more responsive than it often has been. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rich Farmbrough

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?
Arbitrators do in practice have a strong effect on policy. Policy is made not just by formal statements but by interpretation, and the final interpretations are at arb com. The case you mention has been widely accepted--though such sanctions have been used only rarely--see WP:Editing restrictions#Biographies of living persons enforcement log-- which is as it should be. I think of the general situation as that Arb Com does not lead the community, but can guide it effectively in the direction the community wants to go.
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?
Yes. I came to WP after I had retired as a librarian and professor of library science, and it is my principal activity. It will affect other areas of work here: seem y nomination statement.
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 is, not all arbs participate in a case.Arbs have different views, and the need for finality require a full panel. If we had partial panels, we would soon see requests for appeal to the entire panel, thus multiplying the work.
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 stand on my record here. But for confirmation see also the article by Nicholson Baker, "The Charms of Wikipedia" in New York Review of Books, March 20, 2008 paywalled link, which as far back as 2008 referrred to me as an "incredibly patient librarian".
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?
Obviously an arb should try not to prejudge, but it is often impossible to have a discussion about accepting a case without expressing at least a preliminary view of the issues.
The Committee must also be seen to be impartial as a whole. If you were elected would you be willing to waive your right to bring cases for the duration of your office? If not why not?
I've never brought a case, and on or off the committee, I never intend to.
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?
The checkuser tag should be used only when actually relevant. There can be borderline situations, and there could sometimes be a need for a block that requires special consideration to revert, as there is at Arbitration Enforcement.
The purpose of the Committee is to resolve disruptive disputes which the community cannot. On ex-Arbitrator commented that "it is not about justice and fairness". Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment, to what extent and why?
The primary need of arb com is to resolve disputes. This should certainly done with great regard to justice and fairness, but sometimes a decision must to some slight degree be arbitrary to be effective.

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

Question from Rotten regard

If you could permanently change one Wikipedia policy which one would it be and how would you change it.
It's more a procedure than a policy, but I have been advocating for several years that Articles for Deletion should be renamed Articles for Discussion, and deal with disputed merges as well as deletions. The rationale is that merges or deletions can both be useful solutions to sub-notable articles. This question of course is not within the scope of Arbcom.

Questions from QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV

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 assume from your links you're talking about subject competence, not specifically competence at WP editing. With respect to article content, see my answer at Rschen7754's Question 4. With respect to behavior, anyone can react with anger when their views are challenged, and we need to be polite in dealing with all of them. The question is whether they come to understand, or make rational progress impossible.

Questions from Carrite

You were one of the primary organizers of WikiConUSA2014, held at ~~New York University~~ New York Law School from May 30 to June 1, 2014. On January 29 of that year banned Wikipedian Greg Kohs (User:Thekohser), submitted a panel request entitled "Confessions of a Paid Editor." He proposed to deliver there a presentation criticizing Wikipedia's often contradictory policies towards paid editing and to present one paid editor's perspective on the problem. There was apparently insufficient interest in this particular panel for it to go forward. According to his own testimony, Kohs registered for the event and made travel and lodging arrangements, planning to attend as a regular conference participant. At the 11th hour, conference organizers banned him from attending the gathering, intimating through the event's Orwellian-named "Friendly Space Policy" that he faced removal by security and/or arrest if he attempted to participate. This abrupt cancellation of his registration for the event caused him an admittedly small financial loss associated with the cancellation of his reservations, a bill which I believe he submitted to conference organizers. Kohs made multiple requests of various people associated with the conference for a formal rationale of his prohibition from the event grounds, which were pointedly stonewalled. This obviously sets up a series of queries directly reflecting upon your own executive judgment and leadership style.

(1) Why was it suddenly and at the last minute decided by WikiConUSA 2014 organizers that a ban of Greg Kohs from the event as persona non grata was necessary? (2) Why was this reason never communicated to Mr. Kohs? (3) Was Mr. Kohs ever compensated for the (nominal) financial loss which he suffered as a result of this arbitrary last minute decision? If not, why not? (4) Do you feel that this matter was handled properly? Why or why not? What would you do better next time? (5) Do you believe that lists of automatically banned people should exist with respect to future Wikipedia events? How do you square this with the notion that Wikipedia is not censored, that free discussion and free speech are important aspects of the Wikipedia experience? With the notion that free inquiry and the right to dissent are inalienable intellectual rights? (6) Do you feel that the apparent tendency to prejudge Greg Kohs's behavior at a future Wikipedia event reflects poorly upon your ability to handle cases which come before Arbcom dispassionately? Amended, Carrite (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1,2,3,4) I was one of the organizers, not one of the primary organizers, and I was not the decision maker. I have been advised by NYBrad and the Foundation that public discussion of the details would best be avoided. But I will comment on some more general matters: (5) The ability to participate in a WP meeting, or to write a WP article, are not inalienable rights. We offer a publication medium for those who follow our rules; we're not a government. We are not preventing him from expressing his ideas on any of a multitude of channels. I have given indef blocks when needed, and I would have been irresponsible not to have done so. I think an arbitrator unwilling to block or ban is unsuitable for the position, just as much as one eager to find excuses to block or ban. (6) The community has made the decision to prevent the editor you ask about from writing articles or otherwise participating in WP. I consider that rational prevention of disruption, not prejudicial, and exactly analogous.
If you were assigning a letter grade to Arbcom for its work in 2014, what would that grade be? What was the committee's greatest success and their worst mistake?
I consider the cases now pending the most important of the year, and I can't make an overall judgment until they have been decided. There is in any event a difference between the quality of the decisions, and whether I agree with the results. I think I can separate the two, and I do not always expect to get my own way.
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?
Six weeks isn't too bad, considering that Arb Com currently deals mainly with complicated cases, and has a multi-step process of hearing first evidence, then discussing the evidence, then hearing proposed solutions, and then coming to a conclusion. The problems are the few cases that run much longer than that, and they are mainly ones where there is no clear solution.
If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?
More consistent standards and higher participation; the two are linked, because the basic model of our project depends for its quality of wide participation. But most of that is not in the domain of ArbCom.

Questions from Dennis Brown

Without naming names, what skills or qualities do you have that are unique, that might not be present in the current Arbs or candidates? What makes you stand out?
I would not at all say this has given me unique abilities, but I have a very long experience in dealing with continual demands as a teacher and librarian, with the need both to quickly resolve immediate issues and to take a long-range approach to planning and changing direction. I think I've demonstrated the applicability of this patience and persistence in my work at Wikipedia.

Assuming you are elected at Arb, what role do you expect to play as part of that committee?
I intend to work mainly on cases rather than auxiliary activities; more specifically, I think my role will be in trying to restate and summarize and evaluate the state of affairs and to write good statements in decisions. I hope to partially replace NYBrad's skill in this; I will try to be somewhat briefer in discussion, and I will try to be equally concise in conclusion.

What have you done at Wikipedia that you think makes you particularly suitable for the position of Arb?
I have the fourfold combination of (a) strong content writing (though more in drastically rewriting articles than starting new ones), (b) active decision-making at Articles for Deletion, Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and especially Deletion Review, concentrating on the more difficult cases, (c) helping new editors who have gotten into difficulties. I have an understanding of what problems contributors have and how to deal with them, and (d) a wide diversity of activities here: my talk page is the 4th most widely-watched of all Wikipedians.

Question(s) from Worm That Turned

Hi, DGG. 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?
It can be a problem and dealing with it needs care to avoid making the situation worse. I've made decisions that have attracted negative responses, sometimes nasty. Regardless of how the complaint is worded, the first thing I consider is whether I have in face made an error or an over-reaction. If so, I acknowledge the error and ignore the nastiness. If I still think I'm right & the nasty response is at all rational, I explain further. If it is totally irrational, I ignore it. There has been one or two incidents harassment; my experience of them is that the least said about it or in response to it the better. I consider an insult from someone who is clearly in the wrong as a tribute, and have included a few in User:DGG/appreciation received. But if it goes beyond just insult, it can indeed be a problem.

Thanks for answering DGG, I would recommend you don't antagonise people who insult you whilst on the committee though! Best of luck. Worm^TT(talk) 09:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tryptofish

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 overcomplicated. And to the extent I understand it, there seem to be two important errors: (1)Paraphrase of a confidential source as opposed to quoted it exactly does not sanitize it. The only purpose of paraphrase in this context is to change the exact words to prevent text-mining or the like. What the individual actually says will always be the more accurate. Possibly you mean summarize or restate. (2) As I read it, the proposal will make it impossible for one arbitrator to share confidential information with the others, at least by email. Perhaps this is intended; if so, it will make it impossible to validate each others' work and frankly discuss matters.

Question

Hi DGG, Let's please discuss a particular situation you were involved with some time ago: Here you're urging an admin to leave further admin actions with respect to an editor to other administrators. The admin ignored your request, and did use her tools against this very editor more than once.

If a similar situation would come about during your term,would you vote to sanction an admin who uses the tools against an editor he/she involved with? Thank you.
(I am answering even though the qy has been asked by a blocked proxy) I recognize that GG was dealing with a very difficult situation, and I trust her judgment, but it would still better for others to have handled it. The point of avoiding one admin to deal with most interactions by any one difficult editor is not just to avoid prejudice, but to avoid the appearance of prejudice. The successive block will give a stronger impression of impartiality if multiple people do them. And one of the merits of arb com is that their actions are not taken by an individual but as a group decision, by a group that changes annually.
What is your opinion on indefinite blocks/bans of content creators. Does indefinite blocks/bans of content creators serve to the benefit of Wikipedia or otherwise? Please elaborate. Thank you.
Wikipedia needs content creators; but content creators who can work in a cooperative way within the Wikipedia environment. Many excellent writers may prefer an environment where they have greater control over what they write, and where they need not interact directly with critics--at least until they have completed their work. If so, they should work elsewhere, and the world is in need of multiple free content projects which will provide this control and this isolation. (At about the same time I joined Wikipedia, I joined WP:Citizendium as one of its original core of editors. My intent was to work wherever I found it more effective, and in the event, I preferred the more open environment here. I wish they had been more successful, and perhaps they will be yet, now that our licenses are finally compatible. We need competition. ) In order to protect our editing environment for the ordinary editors, we need to control any tendency to foster prima donnas. It is more important in the long run to attract a diverse group of new editors, some of whom will prove to be just as excellent, and we cannot have a situation where existing people with established power scare off the others.

Thank you, for your responses, but I am afraid the first one begs another question. You write: "I recognize that GG was dealing with a very difficult situation, and I trust her judgment". Let's please make sure we're talking about the same "very difficult situation". I'm talking about a request for arbitration, in which both the user and the admin were listed as the major parties. The admin used her tools against the user during that still active at the moment request for arbitration. Now, when we're at the same page,

Do you still trust the admin's judgment, and would you trust another admin's judgment in a similar situation of misusing tools while heavily involved? Thank you.
I still trust her judgement. Any admin can make an error. It only becomes a problem when the persistently or frequently make errors, or do something really stupid. I don;t see that with her work; with another admin, it would also depend on the record. Arb com should deal with persistent arb com errors, but not normally with single events unless there are other factors. If you're wondering, no, she is not particularly a wikifriend.

Question from Anthonyhcole

Above, you say, "I consider the cases now pending the most important of the year." Which cases were you referring to, and what about them is important?
I was hoping someone would ask this. I don't want to get too specific, as we may still be dealing with them in January. But the Gamer Gate case is an excellent example of the problem of how to deal with widespread disruption on a subject. DangerousPanda deals with the problem of long-term editors who are sometimes less polite than many people think desirable, a problem that has been with us for quite a while without solution & also raises the question of the value of RfC(U). GenderGap deals with this problem also, and more specifically how to deal equitably with possibly disruptive people on opposite sides of an issue; Landmark and Historicity deal with our balance in treating with what some consider fringe subjects, something that Arb Com has dealt with in the past but may need to be revisited. My specific views on any of these will become evident if I am elected, but not before.

Question from Hawkeye7

Why are you running? What reforms are you interested in?
I am not running to bring about reforms; I am running to do the work because I think I can do it fairly and well.
What can ArbCom do to address the Gender Gap?
See my answer to Gameliel, above. The only contribution Arb Com can make is to see that people are not bullied at Wikipedia, and this applies to more than the GG.

Question from RightCowLeftCoast

Please explain the following statement on your userpage: "There is a popular-liberal flattening of positions here, and I do not speak from any conceivably right-wing position."
So there is: I prefer the term to "politically-correct" I hope I have edited in such a way that it is impossible to tell my actual politics, though I am definitely not is a right-wing libertarian in the current sense. This more or less corresponds with the current tendency in the academic world, and WP cannot avoid reflecting it. Earlier in WP's history, there was a similar emphasis on "libertarian". All encyclopedic works inevitably epitomize the values of the times in which they were written--e.g. the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. All we can really do is see that all views are represented--people will draw their own conclusions and follow up however they want to. Ideally, we will also show them alternative directions. At least we will provide the links for further investigation, equally to all persuasions. We are here perhaps to reform the world, but only in two particular ways: exemplify what can be done with community editing and free content, and provide access.

Question from Carcharoth

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.
You fall out with a fellow arbitrator and have a big argument on the mailing list - I don't get into extended arguments here. If two or at most three replies haven't explained myself sufficiently, further ones will not help, and I let the matter rest.
Parties to a case make strident and repeated calls for your recusal Normally I would recuse when there's a plausible request. Before concluding the request is implausible or obstructive, I would consult with other arbs.
You sense you are very tired/ill or not fully alert, but voting needs to be done : I'd vote the next day, when I have had time to think.
Parties to a case are squabbling on the case pages and no clerks are around Either find one, or do what is necessary to get things going properly.
You are trying to do some work on articles and someone pesters you about arbitration matters I normally give priority to people's problems,and I would do just the same for arb. matters.

Questions from Bazonka

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'm vice-president of the NYC Chapter; this is not a time-demanding job; I work to some extent as a course ambassador and in outreach, but there are enough people doing these, at least in NYC, that I can easily be less active.
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?

Questions from Fæ

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'm neither.