Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Thank you for standing! Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   Thanks Gerda. I agree with the general point about civility made by Opabinia regalis. I personally try to avoid the use of any condescending/politely worded inflammatory language at all times, as I think they can be equally as uncivil (it's helpful to imagine interactions as if it were happening in real life). I am always in favor of de-escalating conflicts through 1) getting to know how each editor operates, and then 2) to communicate (I've noticed that first step is frequently overlooked; communicating without establishing a common ground easily leads to IDHT). There are cases where there are clear disruption, but this was not one of them. I did express in my statement that clarification on civility would have been helpful, but in hindsight possibly with the clarification to discourage these kind of civility cases as expressed in the sentiment of OR's statement. Alex Shih ( talk) 05:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Question from Carrite

2. So what were you doing for the decade 2007-2016? Do you have any alternate accounts to declare? thanks, —tim

   Thanks Tim. Without going into excessive details on real life commitments in the past, I graduated high school shortly after May 2007 and struggled to get into university until late 2008. I've then worked full-time while going to school until 2010, by that time I've found myself unable to integrate back into the community. Like any community, it's difficult to be active once again when all the familiar faces are no longer there, and without a sense of purpose. The two months of high activity in 2013 was before I went back to school in Japan, which I finished earlier this year. But I think my contribution history shows that I have maintained (although minimal) presence throughout the years, and my activities since the return this year can show that I wasn't someone that disappeared for a decade. I have no alternate accounts. Alex Shih ( talk) 05:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Question from Banedon

2. Were there any Arbcom decisions in the recent past that you disagreed with? That is, were there any motions that you would have voted against the majority on, proposed decisions that you would have drafted differently, etc? If so, what would you have supported / drafted instead, and why? I am particularly interested in your position on contentious motions that split the current committee, e.g. this case request and this proposed remedy. Feel free to pick any contentious motion you are familiar with as an example as well.

   Hi Banedon, sorry for the late response. As the first part of your question has some overlap with Nick's question below, I hope you don't mind if I answer them together later on. Now it's easy to be on the right side of the moral compass when looking in hindsight, but I'll express my (rambling) thoughts on the Michael Hardy case (and maybe the Joefromradb case later, since I have typed too much already; in the meanwhile, my statement in Joe's case and some comments I have left on their talk page will express my stance), which shares underlying similarities on civility in general and code of conduct in my opinion. While slightly unrelated, this response to a discussion on my talk page related to civility would be similar to my initial approach to these two cases if I was directly involved in attempts of dispute resolution.

   To summarize my thoughts on the Michael Hardy (MH) case, the tone of MjolnirPants over the ancestral health article can be condescending, but not atypical of deletion disputes. Usually when I approach an (especially established) editor about their errors, I will try to familiarize myself with their editorship a little bit prior to commenting; after all, this is a collaborative project, it can only be ideal to be as collegial as possible (I don't expect anyone else to do the same). MH was (visibly) agitated by the situation, and started the ill-advised AN/I thread while making some unsupported accusations on their talk page. As NeilN says, the incident was "blown way out of proportion" by MH. I wish the initial intervention by other editors could focus a little more on the tone of MjolnirPants (even though MjolnirPants was not at fault for the escalation, but it was part of the problem), to understand the perspective of MH in the hopes to de-escalate. When facing an agitated editor, I personally find this approach to be more constructive, in comparison to continuing with criticism/demands, which does indeed contribute to being part of the problem.

   Finally, to answer the question about thoughts on the proposed remedy (probation) in that case, I would have strongly disagreed from the beginning. If the committee is the final resort in the process of dispute resolution, it would be insane to suggest to involved editors (non-parties in this case) to simply "drop the stick" after months of deliberation, which can only be inflammatory and inconsiderate given the timing (one month after the incident). As I have expressed above, I found some of the intervention from other editors in the MH case to be less than helpful, and I agree with the sentiment expressed by Opabinia regalis that some of the editing behavior from AN/I regulars can be improved. Alex Shih ( talk) 05:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply

4. Follow-up question re your answer to Nick: I don't understand your answer very well. It sounds like you are taking DeltaQuad's position when she voted to decline the case (the case request page just before it was accepted is here: [1]) and re-filed for "interactions at ITN / DYK". How would you have envisaged such a case? What case scope would you set and what kind of remedies would (could) you enact? If Arbcom rules on how main page content is determined, does that qualify as Arbcom ruling on content disputes?

   Other context: George Ho was not a party to that case when I filed it (he was added on the directive of an arbitrator; see [2]). Also, by the time of the case request, George Ho had not posted to WP:ITNC for six weeks (this is the last diff: [3]).

   @ Banedon: Thank you for the follow up question. Being involved with DYK and occasionally ITN, here are my thoughts. I believe there is a disconnect between editors like The Rambling Man (and some others like Fram, although unrelated) and other editors over the purpose of Wikipedia. The former consistently takes the far stricter approach to quality control, ensuring the editorial is on a par with actual publishing. There are many other editors, like myself, that takes the milder approach, prioritizing on the openness of Wikipedia as a community project. I do believe both of these are correct approaches, but it's difficult to find the right balance.

   The civility of TRM is an issue, and should be addressed, but not in the condescending way the remedies eventually tuned out. I wouldn't have ruled the Main Page out of the scope. There are very little oversight over the quality of submissions in DYK (despite of each entry are "technically" reviewed three times; I am partially responsible, sorry) and ITN, and for editors that wants to improve the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia, I can see the process being extremely frustrating, particularly when dealing with editors like George Ho whom perhaps seem to enforce their own opinions, in my (limited) impression, which led to persistent heated and uncivil exchanges between these parties. Partially reflecting on DGG's question 1 below, I do believe the committee can be successful in dealing with Main Page content concerns, if the focus is on interpreting the process of DYK and ITN as if they were policies. I would personally draft a remedy linking to a RfC proposal for Main Page reforms to be submitted for community discussion if I was involved in the case.

   If the quality concerns over Main Page can be resolved, I sincerely believe editors like TRM would become less consistently cynical; since as of now, even with the ArbCom restrictions, TRM can still continue to be less than collegial as nothing have really changed since the ruling. Alex Shih ( talk) 06:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Questions from Collect

2. Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?

   Thank you, Collect, for your questions. Let me give my variation of "no". I think the purpose of this question is about the ideal approach to cases. It would be wrong to approach any dispute with the assumption that the underlying causes are going to be black and white. My idea of a good arbitrator withholds their presumption until all merits of the case have been thoroughly considered.

4. If an administrator has openly stated a strong aversion to an editor's article edits on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?

   Yes, I would personally recuse if I was involved in such situation. Perceived neutrality is equally as important as being technically impartial; a similar question has been asked below and I will expand my response there.

6. a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, ought there be a delay to give that editor sufficient time to address "new evidence"?
   b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, ought space and time for rebuttal be given?
   c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
   d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?

   a. If the person has communicated well with the community (having given a reasonable response, does not show signs of being evasive in their comments), a reasonable delay should be accepted.
   b. Again, I think this entirely depends on the involved person. I am personally not a fan of the current workshop process, which extends the length of the arbitration unnecessarily at times that can be exhausting for all participants. To address the question, the nature of these evidence would be the key. If these new evidence would likely evoke counter arguments that have already been addressed, I am of the opinion that additional space/time would not be entirely necessary (although each case would be different) as the weight of these new evidence in this situation would unlikely play a significant role in the final decision.
   c. I think my response to b) covers this question as well.
   d. In principle, I would say such circumstance should not exist as it is the very definition of involvement that puts the impartiality of the arbitrator into question. However, I would not oppose referencing policy/guideline that are interpretations based on evidence presented in the proposed decision if the dispute has been deadlocked. Alex Shih ( talk) 05:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Question from Nick

2. Pick three Arbitration cases from the last six years, explain in detail what aspects of the committee you agree with, what aspects you disagree with, and what you would attempt to do differently. Where you disagree with the previous outcomes and where you would do things differently, indicate how you would attempt to gain consensus and support from the other committee members. You can copy bits of your answers to the above question from Banedon if suitable/relevant.

   Thank you Nick, for your question. This question would take me some time to think about, so I hope you don't mind if I briefly skip over to the next question. In the meanwhile, I think my response to Banedon addressed some aspects of this question, but I will elaborate later with several more extensive response and examples. Regards, Alex Shih ( talk) 05:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   12/2 Update: Nick Banedon Some quick notes about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man, I may elaborate later. Reading through the evidence page, my reading was the popular opinion on what the case scope should be did not turn out to be consistent with the remedies enacted. I find myself sympathetic to the point raised by RexxS; but can real life stress justify persistent incivility? Certainly not. Therefore, my thoughts are along the lines of Casliber, that the eventual narrow case can be seen as unfair. There were three aspects to this case, consisting of The Rambling Man's behavior, George Ho's behavior, and the persistent issues surrounding quality control in the Main Page. The committee cannot possibly be perceived as fair with much undue weight being put on one editor. This case could have been a good opportunity to address longstanding problems in DYK/ITN/Main Page in general, and I feel focusing more on these content aspect of the case instead of individual civility, despite of being potentially out of process, would have been more constructive as it would likely have gotten more content creators involved to tackle the core of the causes that led to years of problematic editor conduct and disputes. Alex Shih ( talk) 06:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC) reply

   12/4 Update: Some notes about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis. My position is similar to the thoughts expressed by HJ Mitchell. Commenting purely on the principles, it seems strange that for a case about longstanding issues with much evidence provided, that the final remedies included mostly inconsequential terms "encouraged" and "reminded" that are effectively useless as it solved nothing and arguably led to the second case. Did that really require nearly three months of deliberation? The two restrictions on Magioladitis is something that I would imagine could have been established at AN/I, even if the most recent report at the time failed to gain any clear traction. The reason, in my opinion, is because there were too much focus on the technical aspect of the dispute. While I understand the technical issues and conduct issues in this case were intrinsically connected, what I would have preferred is to focus primarily on the conduct issues of Magioladitis first; violations of bot policy and AWB rules of use were clear, but I would be more concerned about the complaints in regards to editing against consensus, ignoring community opinions, bludgeoning of discussions and the history of WP:INVOLVED unblocking of his own bot WP:TOOLMISUSE, @articularly when there is precedent in the Rich Farmbrough case. Alex Shih ( talk) 05:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Question from TheGracefulSlick

2. In the Arthur Rubin case, there were complaints regarding the apparent absence of Commitee members; their lack of participation meant a fairly obvious case was prolonged beyond cognition. (a) Will you consistently be candid and engaging during Arbcom cases? (b) Do you believe granting different roles of the Commitee to the community would simplify and shorten the timeframe of cases?

   Hello TheGracefulSlick. My opinion is that while I see no problems with arbitrators being inactive editors, I find it reasonable to expect that if an arbitrator has been listed in Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Members as being active, it's only fair for the community to expect the arbitrator to either respond to cases in a timely manner, or recuse if they are unable to actively engage so that the process would not be unnecessarily prolonged. So to answer to your question, yes, I would be consistently candid and engaging, and when I am unable to do so shall unforeseen circumstances arise, the only option for myself would be to recuse accordingly. In regards to the second part of your question, I do believe (perhaps idealistic) that many of the roles of the committee should eventually be delegated to the community, for the very reasons that you have stated. On a slightly unrelated note, one of the examples of empowering the community would be to improve WP:EDR, with the help of WMF if possible (you may be interested to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. Alex Shih ( talk) 05:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Question from Elonka

2. Hi, could you please provide some examples of your involvement with and understanding of the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution processes? Have you been a participant in any Arbitration cases, or have you offered any comments? Thanks.

   Hi Elonka, I am sorry for taking longer than usual to answer this question. I have never been directly involved in the official dispute resolution process, but I think some of my involvement on WP:AN/I reports (commenting, working on resolutions, and closing discussions) in addition to in several cases working with users directly can demonstrate my skills/experience in de-escalaton and problem-solving. I will provide some evidence in the form of diffs to that later. My participation in arbitration cases are limited to the recent ones, and I will also provide the diffs to my comments and statements when I get home tonight. Thank you. Alex Shih ( talk) 06:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
   
   11/24 update @ Elonka: Sorry, here is my full response to your question. The key to dispute resolution process, in my opinion, is the ability to de-escalate a situation that could potentially be distressing, and I can think of two examples ( [4] [5]) that could illustrate my experience in this area. In the past few months, I have been fairly active on administrative noticeboards, closing out discussions to implement editing restrictions ( [6]). But it's not always about participating/closing, there was at least one time I have found myself initiating an AN/I report as part of the attempt to resolve a long-standing dispute, which ended successfully. On several other occasions, administrative decisions that I have made have been directly contested; for example, in this page mover discussion. My approach in contentious situations has always been to identify the concerns, address them accordingly with honesty and offer potential compromise to try to work toward a resolution (in this case, the contestation was also resolved). This is probably also reflected in my most recent participation at AN/I, where I made a out of process closure that was contested, but maintained to work with the editor contesting the closure in this response, and eventually reaching an agreement and re-closed the discussion with a revised statement. I think these are some of the examples that would illustrate my capability to be part of the dispute resolution process. In terms of my participation in arbitration cases, I will provide two recent examples that would demonstrate my general approach to the process ( cross-wiki issues, Mister Wiki). Alex Shih ( talk) 13:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Questions from InsaneHacker

2. The arbitration policy states that arbitrators are expected to recuse themselves from proceedings if they have a conflict of interest. What do you consider conflicts of interest? Are there any situations that may be considered COI "grey areas" that you have an opinion on?

   Hello InsaneHacker, I am sorry for the late response. My view on conflict of interest for arbitrators is reflected in this recusal request that I wrote relating to a case last month. I consider having anything that can challenge your perceived neutrality to be a form of conflict of interest. I am of the opinion that even when you are technically uninvolved (one of the grey areas I suppose), it's still better to think in terms what should not be done instead of what must not be done.

4. There is currently no requirement that ArbCom members have to be administrators, but historically every arbitrator has also been an admin. Do you see any value in having non-administrators on the commitee, why/why not? (I'm especially interested in answers from non-admin nominees)

   There is an apparent disconnect in this community between administrators and editors, and it's something that I would like to work on resolving through tackling on greater responsibilities. The problem with active use of advanced permissions is that it transforms your perspective over Wikipedia into something similar to a work environment. Perhaps it doesn't apply to everyone, but it does make you (in my case) treat your position here as an actual job (temptations to say our policies, our guidelines, as administrator...), and in my opinion you begin to lose your perspective on what matters to average editors also contributing equally to the project. We are all editors, so I believe there is great value in having non-administrators on the committee. Any technical issues (such as unable to access to regular advanced permissions) can be solved through temporary restrictive adminship by having bureaucrat assign administrator user group that expires when the term ends to successful non-administrator candidate, which I think is a possibility within the current technical limitations.

6. Do you think that administrators or users in good standing who generally contribute to the project in a constructive manner should be given more leeway when it comes to sanctions against them (also referred to as the Super Mario problem)? If not, do you think this happens currently, and if so, what can be done to prevent it?

   They shouldn't, but that's the reality. My view on this is that serious concerns that violates the terms of use and damages the credibility of this project (like the current case with an active administrator involved in questionable paid editing) must be addressed for what it is, swiftly if sanctions are required and without any regard on who the user is, which is the only way to prevent this from recurring. For civility/conduct issues in a regular content dispute, I would favour the common sense approach, which is to 1) identify the severity of the issue. 2) considering alternative proposals; trying to find compromise by discussing perspective from opposing sides. I think it's important to familiarize with editors involved in the sanction discussion, but for the purpose of assessing their motives and working out tailored solutions, but never to influence the final decision, which should only be made in the best interest of the wider community. Alex Shih ( talk) 05:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Questions from DGG

2. Officially, Arbcom is supposed to deal primarily with conduct disputes, not content, and to interpret and apply policy, not make it. But it has always seemed to me that most conduct disputes have their origin in disagreements over content, and that Arb Com has in fact been most successful when actually dealing with content concerns, as in the pseudoscience and nationalism related cases, even though it may have to word it indirectly. And it has also always seemed to me that the necessary interpretation of policy can in effect amount to making policy, as with the cases involving BLP. What do you think? DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   Hi DGG, I fully agree with you, but I think there are cases, particularly in pseudoscience and nationalism related cases, where the opposite may be true (conduct issues masked with the appearance of content dispute). Identifying whether or not the case is related to content or conduct and make decisions in a timely manner would be beneficial to improve the effectiveness of the process, in my opinion. In regards to the second part of this question, I am a firm believer that many of the policies are intentionally worded ambiguously, as many of them were written by editors themselves that gradually established a consensus. As consensus can change, I am not concerned about interpretation of policy by the committee leading to policy changes, as long as they are supported by clear community consensus.

4. There have been very few actual arb com cases in the last few years, which might indicate that the community is doing better with its problems, and that the basic rules are becoming well understood. It seems to me that most of the business at arb com has been dealing with ban appeals, which is done on the mailing list, and often involves considerations of privacy. I'm not sure we do very well at this. What do you think about this? DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)) reply

   When an editor has exhausted all options of community appeal and has to resort to appealing to the committee, I understand there may be private information involved that cannot be disclosed to the public, which can be frustrating as it sheds negative light on the committee over the apparent lack of transparency, even though it cannot be helped. I am not sure what to think of this, except that there has to be a more streamlined process that would, for instance, consolidate UTRS, OTRS and the ban appeals into one process. Any privacy concerns with legal implications should re-directed to WMF, as I honestly don't believe this is a task for the volunteer-based community.

6. When I joined arb com 3 years ago, most arbs thought that the terms of use were not necessarily enforceable policy at the English Wikipedia, and that arb com has no role in its enforcement. I strongly disagreed at the time--I think they are inherently policy to the extent they are applicable, and arb com has the same jurisdiction as for other behavioral policy. (Of course, we may want or need to interpret it further--and certainly can extend it.) To some degree, I think it possible that the prevailing opinion may have been changing a little towards the position I hold. Where do you stand? (I am thinking primarily but not exclusively about undeclared paid editing) DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)) reply

   My stance is that enforcing the terms of use is not optional, especially when serious issues (potentially damaging to the project) such as undisclosed paid editing and outings are involved. While it is far more acceptable to talk first before sanctioning, there are cases, in my opinion, where the opposite is true to make sure no further damages are done to the community/editors, before a thorough discussion can take place.

8. As I see it, most arbs are of the opinion that the requirement that editors avoid outing applied equally to good faith and bad faith editors. I however think that it ought to be interpreted to apply with much less rigor to those who appear to be editing in bad faith or deliberately against the terms of use. (I recognize the difficulty in deciding initially who is editing in bad faith) Where do you stand? DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)) reply

   This is a moral dilemma. Committee should not be the judge, jury and executioner. My stance on outing is that, yes, any resemblance of outing needs to be dealt with swiftly with appropriate tools (oversight), but the disciplinary action that follows should depend on the 1) context 2) intent, and it should be left to the discretion of the community if it's not a clear call. Alex Shih ( talk) 13:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Questions from Ammarpad

2. Arb-Com is a high level panel that issues binding solutions after protracted dispute and only when lesser resolution processes prove ineffective. In the time you are active here prior to 2007 and back in 2016, have you been involved with those lesser dispute resolutions processes like Third opinion and WP:DRR? and do you think experience there is important in Arb-Com candidate?  —  Ammarpad ( talk) 19:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ Ammarpad: Thank you for your question, Ammarpad. I am afraid your question is somewhat similar to Question #7 by Elonka, and I will re-direct you to my response over there. Regards, Alex Shih ( talk) 13:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Question from Rschen7754

2. Your editing history shows that you have spent much more time as an inactive administrator than an active one. Serving on ArbCom has resulted in many highly active editors going completely active near the end of their two-year terms and often leaving the site entirely. Given that, what would you say to those who are concerned about your ability to serve as an active arbitrator for the majority of a two-year term? -- Rs chen 7754 06:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ Rschen7754: Thank you for the question. If serving on ArbCom has resulted highly active editors to go completely inactive near the end (assuming that's what you meant), wouldn't I be the opposite (from inactive to active)? With the humour aside, it's a legitimate concern that I have been editing for the past several months with unsustainable pace, and serving on the committee would very likely lead me to being further drained in no time. I would say to those who are concerned, to look for patterns in my recent editing; since retuning, I have been maintaining a workspace and a (mostly) administrative log. Speaking from experience, I think editors leave the site when the sense of purpose no longer exists, and I think my editing in recent months shows a sense of purpose. If I am unable to serve consistently as active arbitrator, I will either resign or be subject to recall. There's no reason to stay at such position if I am unable to perform nor working on initiating change. Alex Shih ( talk) 20:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Question from SilkTork

2. Hi. Thanks for stepping forward. I am asking this same question to all candidates. What can the committee do that the rest of the community cannot? SilkTork ( talk) 15:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   Hi SilkTork, thank you for the question. Similar to what I have quoted Worm That Turned in my statement, there is not much that the community cannot do (including dispute resolution and other roles of the committee). What the committee can do, in my unrealistic ideals, is to represent the community and work closely with the WMF to make positive changes happen. Alex Shih ( talk) 20:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Question from Biblioworm

2. On this page, I have drafted some detailed proposals (already written as formal motions) which would reform ArbCom's policies and procedures. As an arbitrator, would you propose and/or vote for these motions? If you only support some of the proposals, please name the ones that you support and the ones that you do not support. If you do not support a particular proposal, please elaborate as to what, if anything, would make the proposal acceptable to you.

   Thank you, Biblioworm. I have read the proposals, and I have found myself supporting every and each one of them.
   1. Support - I have always wondered what the committee standards are for appointing CheckUser and Oversighter tools. While there are hearings for community opinions, it doesn't seem like (at least on the surface) that these opinions are being considered with reason in the final decision, which renders the community hearing pointless. The process has to be more transparent, so I am firmly in support and will propose/vote for this motion.
   2. Support: I am a proponent for streamlining the process, the motion is perfectly worded as it is and I have nothing further to add.
   3. Support: While I am inexperienced with arbitration enforcement, from what I have read, there have been complaints about the fairness of this process, and this motion would address these issues to a fair extent in my opinion.
   4. Support: This amendment would address what I planned to work for as mentioned in my statement, which is to empower the community by delegating more roles, but of course protected by conditions to avoid misuse, similar to what has been laid out in this proposal. Alex Shih ( talk) 19:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Question from Certified Gangsta

2. ArbCom frequently accepts cases that stems from nationalism and ethnic edit wars (see study Wikipedia:Working_group_on_ethnic_and_cultural_edit_wars). You have personally been in the middle of several of these disputes. In July (shortly after your very long hiatus from Wikipedia), you personally removed an editor from the list of participants on Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan [7] and then removed his talkpage post when confronted [8]. That is not an isolated incident or a recent development. Ten years ago (under your previous username), you extensively patronized the infamous pro-China POV pusher and community-banned sockpuppet master User:Ideogram Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ideogram during his harassment campaign against several editors. To quote highly-respected admin User:Jehochman's summary on CSN, The pattern of Ideogram's behavior is incivility, edit warring, POV pushing, sock puppetry to avoid scrutiny and sow chaos, and worst of all, Ideogram targets users who have been in some kind of trouble and are trying to correct themselves. Ideogram baits and trolls his targets until they relapse, and then he seeks to have them banned. This cynical behavior should not be tolerated at Wikipedia. [9]. Yet such conduct did not dissuade you from posting this supportive message (with a smiley face) on Ideogram's talkpage after his community ban took effect [10], where you and other pro-China editors seemingly made him out to be a "martyr" for the "pro-China" cause. Mere months before, in Ideogram's arbitration case, you also made a blatantly one-sided statement in support of Ideogram [11] Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram#Statement_by_AQu01rius without any supporting evidence or diffs. What this statement does highlight, however, is your obvious nationalistic allegiance and lack of objectivity. Here are a few illuminating quotes: "(Ideogram) is a legitimate editor," "The categorization by User:Jumping cheese is terribly inappropriate," " User:Hong Qi Gong and User:Blueshirts (other Ideogram's nationalistic allies) have said most of the things that needs to be said", and "Taiwan vs China" or "Pan-Blue vs Pan-Green" are "ridiculous concepts." Taken together, the implication is that you and your allies (other Chinese editors who advocate for the irredentist concept Greater China and the annexation of Taiwan) have free reigns to suppress the viewpoint of Taiwanese nationalism in any relevant articles through gang-patrolling/meatpuppetry, canvassing on WikiProjects, harassment, gaming the system, and wiki-stalking. NPOV and WP:OWN be damned. The "Taiwan vs. China" narrative (which you dismissed as a "ridiculous concept") was later affirmed by highly-respected admin User:Bishonen, who quoted that "The concept of ethnicity is rooted more in the idea of social grouping, marked especially by shared nationality, tribal affiliation, shared genealogy/kinship and descent, religious identification, language use, or specific cultural and traditional origins." ( Abizadeh 2001) [12]. Your unprincipled support for a fellow pro-China editor seems to stem strictly from nationalistic ground and a sense of ethnic kinship (trying my best to AGF here) while simultaneously trying to gain an upper hand in content disputes by getting editors who disagree with your and your allies' nationalistic agenda banned by ArbCom. What made the optics worse was that ArbCom later lifted the sanctions against Ideogram's opponent [13] in light of Ideogram's community ban and other private considerations (it came to light that there was a cabal of pro-China POV pushers conspiring to boot neutral and/or Taiwan-centric voices off the project in a concerted effort to gradually transform all relevant articles to a pro-China bent through Wikipedia:Tag team and Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing). So my question is this, how could the Wikipedia community possibly entrust someone with an obvious personal stake and a long record of nationalistic bias as an arbitrator (aka the last resort of dispute resolution)? As many others above as well as voter guide writers have pointed out, you have only been active for the last 4 months and (other than 1 month of activity in August 2013) had been practically inactive for a decade, yet one of your first act since your return is to remove an old nemesis from the list of participants in a WikiProject. Is there any evidence that you have changed your views/mellowed with age to the point where the community can trust you to remain objective and impartial as an arbitrator? Because frankly a quick examination of your record indicates otherwise. If elected, would you promise to recuse from all nationalism-themed cases in light of well-documented conflicts of interest?

   @ Certified Gangsta: I read this with great fascination, CG. I genuinely thought you were community banned, did not realize you returned after several renames. That was my thought when I was going through the member list, because when I clicked the name, it said "user does not exist". So I apologize if you took it the wrong way. A question: did you realize that Ideogram is the only user I was ever involved in a dispute with 10 years ago, and they are the only user that opposed my RfA 10 years ago? I will stop here, as most of your comments appears to be based on the assumption that I am a meat puppet, which I will leave it to the community to judge whether or not that's just plain trolling. Regards, Alex Shih ( talk) 11:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

4. Follow-up questions: When you run from ArbCom, it is expected that your entire body of work comes under intense scrutiny from the community (as a 3-time candidate, I know this better than anyone else). When an established editor raises valid questions about your record regarding potential bias and conflict of interest with supporting diffs, is baselessly accusing him/her of "trolling" (ad hominem attack) with no evidence whatsoever the optimal way of conducting yourself?

6. One of the voter guide writers mentions that shortly after announcing your candidacy, you "popped over to the Wikipediocracy (widely described as a site critical of Wikipedia) message board" ostensibly as a way to canvass off-wiki. No other candidates have done so. Do you find that to be appropriate? What's your position on "stealth canvassing'?

8. You seemingly made an attempt to distance yourself from sockpuppeteer Ideogram (a major PR liability, I presume) in your answer above by implying there were major conflicts between you two. However, you failed to address your cringeworthy "smiley face" message to him after he was community banned [14], where you and User:HongQiGong made him out to be a "martyr." You have also failed to address the grotesquely nationalistic pro-China, anti-Taiwan statement [15] you made on Ideogram's arbitration case, where you attacked neutral observer User:Jumping cheese for daring to question you and Ideogram's pro-China orthodoxy (quote: "The categorization by User:Jumping cheese is terribly inappropriate"), praised HongQiGong and another Chinese editor named User:Blueshirts (a self-proclaimed supporter of the fascist Blue Shirts Society) (quote:"User:Hong Qi Gong and User:Blueshirts have said most of the things that needs to be said"), defended Ideogram ("this is a legitimate editor") , and directly contradicted neutral admin User:Bishonen's evidence (you: "Taiwan vs China" or "Pan-Blue vs Pan-Green" are "ridiculous concepts. Bishonen's quote: one basic disagreement is whether the ethnic distinction betrween Taiwanese and Chinese is a matter of self-identification or of biology ("blood"). CG says the former, his opponents the latter. Thus Ben Aveling: "Even if every Taiwanese citizen stopped speaking Chinese they would still be ethnically Chinese (aboriginies excluded). It's in the blood." [16] As far as I know, CG's opposite view of ethnicity is the dominant one today, when we don't talk so often about what is and isn't in the blood. See Ethnic group#Ethnicity, nation, and race: "While ethnicity and race are related concepts ( Abizadeh 2001), the concept of ethnicity is rooted more in the idea of social grouping, marked especially by shared nationality, tribal affiliation, shared genealogy/ kinship and descent, religious identification, language use, or specific cultural and traditional origins, whereas race is rooted in the idea of a biological classification." Given your obvious pro-China bias, history of praise, fraternization, patronization, and cozy ties with several unsavory characters who share your nationalistic POV (including a self-avowed fascist), and the fact that you just started editing again 4 months ago (after being largely inactive for a decade), how can you assure the community that you don't have an ulterior motive in running for ArbCom? And if elected, would you pledge to recuse yourself from any and all ArbCom cases that pertain to nationalism and ethnic tensions?

Question from Smallbones

2. I’m asking all candidates this question and will use the answers to make a voter guide. Please state whether you will enforce the Terms of Use section on ‘’’paid editing’’’. Should all undeclared paid editors be blocked (after one warning)? Are administrators allowed to accept payment for using their tools for a non-Wiki employer? Can admins do any paid editing and still maintain the neutrality needed to do their work? (Note that only one admin AFAIK has declared as a paid editor since the ToU change). Do you consider the work done at WP:COIN to be useful, or is it just another “drama board”? Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 00:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ Smallbones: Thank you for the question. I think this question has some overlaps with Question #9.3 from DGG, so I hope I can re-direct my response there to address the first part of your question. In regards to administrators and paid editing, I believe my position has been expressed in my statement for the current Mister Wiki case. The simple answer is, no. Community trust is everything. WP:COIN is certainly useful, but there are not enough admins and regular reviewers are sometimes not equipped with the tools needed to detect collusion. Alex Shih ( talk) 05:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Question from Bishonen

2. Hi, Alex. I notice you haven't responded to Certified Gangsta's follow-up questions above. And for his first question, you only answered a minor detail, about your removal of him from Wikiproject China's members' list (or I assume it was China — it's not entirely clear to me which wikiproject it was), with the explanation "I genuinely thought you were community banned". (Would you say there's a bit of poisoning the well in starting with such a comment?). Presumably you considered the rest of his first question not deserving of an answer. You have asked the coordinators if they thought the question appropriate, without getting any response from them. Are you sure there's nothing there, nor in the follow-up questions, that you want to consider answering? In your candidate statement, you said "I would love to answer any questions in detail, so please don’t hesitate to ask for more information". If you consider CG's questions mere trolls, I suppose your invitation to ask for information becomes moot in this case. But, well, rejecting them out of hand, without even explaining why, seems a bit wholesale to me. What about CG's question 3, for example? Bishonen | talk 15:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC). reply

   @ Bishonen: I actually spoke with Ritchie333 privately over e-mail, and also spoke with several other administrators over IRC to discuss the validity of these questions. The unanimous response was that these questions are a form of trolling, and the advice I was given is to just ignore these comments. With all due respect, I find it incredulous you would find questions starting with the baseless premise that I have obvious pro-China bias, history of praise, fraternization, patronization, and cozy ties with several unsavory characters who share your nationalistic POV to be valid questions that you symphasise and assuming I would answer, considering the fact that you raised concerns over another editor's questioning toward candidates. I actually share your concern and consider Collect's questions to be borderline disruptive when taking the history into consideration. However, with the premise that questionings toward candidates are supposed to be open (allowing these kind of questions to exist), while answering of the questions by candidates are supposed to be optional (allowing candidates like myself to overlook these questions; if the community decides that I am somehow being evasive, it will be shown in the voting results). Regards, Alex Shih ( talk) 17:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Question from C-GAUN

2. Hi there. I am curious of your stance on some Chinese editors with obvious nationalistic agendas such as this one. If elected, what action would you take to ensure nationalistic youngsters to not engage in POV-pushing or launching personal insults? Thank you.

   @ C-GAUN: Thank you for your question. Enforcing WP:NPOV in Chinese-related topics is one of the more difficult tasks, similar to the difficulty faced in South Asian topics (my respect to Vanamonde93 and SpacemanSpiff). I find it effective to deal with cases like Nixiao1983 by enforcing three principles, highlighting the necessity to use reliable sources, emphasizing verifiability, not truth, and absolutely no original research. Talk:Stephen_Chow#.22Net_worth.22 is an recent example of my approach to a similar situation. Regards, Alex Shih ( talk) 02:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Questions from Nuro Dragonfly

2. Hello, my question is simple; how will you correct the arbitrary removal of musical/band articles by specific types of 'editors' who claim a lack of 'notoriety' due to not being able to find some link to another website as somehow being the only standard WikiPedia excepts? I personally barely, if at all in my original works, will cite a website, with some exceptions. The arbitrary attitudes of these types of 'editors' is the reason that the Wiki has a serious lack of editors, who have the time and energy to correctly and with good faith write articles, to fill those missing ones, are falling by the way side. To be specific the individual attitudes of Admin Editors who have very little care for the efforts of others, regardless of some attempt at a non-biased and neutral Wiki adherence. I consider the complete body of works by musicians and bands to be the goal, not some mistaken interpretation on 'notoriety' on a specific album/song, and therefore it to be omitted. How will you deal with this matter in the Wiki Admin sphere post haste? Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 02:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ Nuro Dragonfly: Hi, thank you for the question. I think it would be helpful if you could link to specific examples, as it is not really apparent from your talk page archive nor contribution history. If I was to speculate, I think you are confusing "notoriety" with "notability". All articles need to verifiable, based on significant coverage from reliable sources, to assess for their notability ( music). What you are considering is not consistent with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (in particular WP:INDISCRIMINATE), and I am hoping that you would take another look at these policies again. Alex Shih ( talk) 04:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Question from Berean Hunter

2. Viewpoint 1: Policy should be interpreted as it is written and enforced as such. If the goals are not being met then the policy should be reviewed and perhaps changed but in the meantime this is the status quo. Viewpoint 2: Policy should be interpreted for its intent over the wording. Where conflict arises between wording and intent, either do not enforce or possibly customize enforcement to try to achieve the intent per IAR. How would you describe your own viewpoint relative to the two opposing views above?
    —  Berean Hunter (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ Berean Hunter: Thank you for your question. This prompts me to read the original debate about WP:IAR. I personally have the tendency to lean toward Viewpoint 2, but here's the explanation on my viewpoint. Both viewpoints needs to exist; from administrative perspective, practice of the first viewpoint are better in ordinary cases, to ensure that application of policies are being consistent. When conflicts do arise, I think it's necessary to have more flexible approach and involve more opinions to assess the intent of these policies and how it should apply in the situation. I am not concerned about my own viewpoint when I am involved in such decision; I am more concerned about finding the best possible solution that is thoughtful, kind, and can be agreed by most editors after seeking consensus. Alex Shih ( talk) 04:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply