Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from Usernamekiran

2. You got the CU flag in very recent past. Dont you think getting in arbcom is a little too soon? I mean, workload-wise. I mean, are you comfortable/used to with the CU tools yet? Basically, what I am trying to ask is, would you be able to manage time properly for all the activities you usually do, with CU being sort of new still? (Among many others, bot operating, adminship, sort of new CU, +arbcom)

   I would consider myself nearly fully trained with the CU tools at this point, thanks to some excellent mentorship by DeltaQuad and extremely helpful feedback from other experienced CheckUsers. There will always be some tricky cases where I seek feedback from other CheckUsers, but that's not abnormal for even experienced CUs. I've been working independently at SPI for several weeks now. I personally don't see being a relatively new CU as prohibitive from a workload standpoint, especially given that every arbitrator receives CU upon being elected. Most have to learn how to use it at the same time as taking on arbitrator responsibilities; I would not have to do that.

4. Hi again. Originally, what I meant to ask was, if granted a seat on arbcom, would you be able to provide time for all of your activities properly? Do you think getting this new resbonsibility will affect the time you spend on other activities? Or the quality of your contributions? In Oshwah's CU election, this point was the second biggest concern that earned him negative votes.

   I'm not concerned about that, no. It certainly would not affect the quality of contributions; I try never to sacrifice quality for quantity. My interests vary over time, so I'm sure time devoted to different activities will change, but not as a result of this election.

Aside from User:Winged Blades of Godric

2. Continuing from the lines of the previous question:--Has workload-pressure got anything to do with you giving up the OTRS bits, sometime after being inducted into CU team, despite being an active user over OTRS?Regards:)

   No, it does not. I gave that up for unrelated reasons, and I actually hadn't been particularly active on the "front lines" there for some months before that. I disagreed with how some within the OTRS team were handling old permissions that were discovered to be invalid, and after exhausting my opportunities to enact change from within, I decided to leave. I'd rather not go into greater detail on this because I have no desire to "name names", which would just cause unnecessary drama. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 13:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Followup question from wbm1058

2. How much of this backlog have you worked on in the past two months? Do your differences with OTRS also have to do with copyright or licensing issues? You can answer this without naming names.

   My differences do relate to copyright. I started by fully clearing out the related {{ Cc-by}} backlog (which had about ~75 transclusions originally, I believe). I then started to chip away at Cc-by-sa. I have worked on that backlog over the past couple months, though not since becoming a CheckUser. I was focusing on getting up to speed with that tool. I planned to return to some of the file backlogs very shortly, since I'm now rather comfortable with the CU tool.

Question from Carrite

2. A total of 84K edits is impressive indeed, even if the total is run up with bot edits... But your edit history starts only in June 2015 with an edit at Templates for Discussion, and you have not declared any previous accounts. So, forgive me for asking: what are your previous accounts? thanks, —tim

   I do not have any previous accounts which have not already been disclosed. I addressed such concerns in response to question 4 of my RfA, and you're welcome to see my response there for more detail in how I got into various things on Wikipedia early on. Beyond that, proving a negative is hard, but multiple arbitrators are aware of my real-life identity and I've attended an in-person Wikipedia event.

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?

   If there's an appearance of a conflict-of-interest, an arbitrator should recuse. Appearances can be just as bad as truth. Because of how often the Committee deals with private information, they can't be as transparent as they'd like to be. They have to ask for a great deal of trust from the community that they're acting appropriately based on the information available to them. That trust is easily shattered with just the appearance of a conflict-of-interest, whether or not there actually is one. I would recuse from any situation where I have been personally involved beyond my role as an administrator. If administrative actions were being questioned, I'd recuse from anything I was involved in administratively as well. I would also recuse with respect to any editor I have strong opinions about or who I've had strongly positive or negative interactions with in the past that could lead people to believe I have strong opinions about them.

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)

   Personally, no. It's difficult to run a farm without some farming experience. The Committee is tasked with potentially passing sanctions in the most difficult situations on the encyclopedia, trying to go for the least severe sanctions possible while preventing disruption to the site. A non-administrator lacks the necessary experience there, in my opinion. I'm sure there are non-admins who would be assets on the Committee, but it's hard to distinguish them from those who wouldn't without any administrative track record.

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?

   This is complicated. On one hand, if they're seriously disrupting the site or seriously failing WP:CIVIL on a consistent basis, no amount of positive contributions makes that acceptable. On the other hand, an editor with many positive contributions needs to show more disruption before anyone can conclude they're a net negative and consider something like a site ban. I definitely do think long-term editors are sanctioned more lightly than newer editors when they make equal errors. That's not inherently bad in all cases; if an account has one bad edit and zero good edits, that has to be interpreted very differently in terms of danger of future disruption versus an account with one bad edit and thousands of good edits. I think we go too far with that, though, to the point that some long-term editors feel like they can violate policies flagrantly and repeatedly with no consequences due to their other contributions. Early intervention with admonishments and clear warnings about the sanctions to expect if such behavior continues would be helpful here.

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Thank you for standing! Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   I agree with the first part, certainly. The Arbitration Committee should have declined that case request before even considering its merits because an ANI thread on it had been closed very recently with no further disruptive actions after the close. The Committee should not accept cases based on disputes that are not currently causing issues, except perhaps if administrator conduct is being considered. The community can handle things up until the point where they're failing to prevent ongoing disruption.

Question from User:ShakespeareFan00

2. The Arbitration Committee has to tackle many issues, but I will use a specific topical example, How would you if appointed handle an arbitration case where 'inappropriate' language or innuendo about a female BLP or contributor was alleged?

   It's difficult to draw any conclusions without seeing the specifics of a situation. Let's assume for a second that there is a clear-cut case where an editor unambiguously and consistently directed unwanted sexual comments at a female contributor or possibly many female contributors. Perhaps that sort of thing would come to the Committee because such comments were made off-wiki (otherwise, I'd hope the community could handle such obvious harassment). That editor cannot be allowed to remain on the site, especially if they do not believe their comments were inappropriate. No contributor should feel threatened or unsafe as a result of comments made by another contributor, and unwanted sexual comments are incompatible with continuing to edit the site. In such a situation, I would support a site ban.

Questions from Collect

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

   Absolutely not.

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?

   It doesn't necessarily mean they're no longer impartial, but it certainly does mean they're involved. They should not act administratively with regard to that editor. The definition of "involved" is intentionally broad to avoid even the appearance of bias.

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 case should not proceed without the parties having an opportunity to be involved. The Committee has certain tools at its disposal to place a case on hold while preventing disruption (e.g. preliminary motion barring tool usage until the case proceeds, in the case of administrative issues). Such tools can prevent editors from gaming the system by suddenly "going on vacation".

   Editors should have an opportunity to rebut the evidence against them.

   In most cases, I wouldn't support extending time, but evidence can be analyzed in the workshop. Rebuttals could be offered there and arbitrators would still read them. ArbCom cases are already quite long, and lengthening them even more is usually not a good idea.

   In no circumstances, but as I advocated in my statement, arbitrators should be more active earlier in the case. If an arbitrator looks into the case and notices something they want to bring in as evidence, they could post this themselves in the Workshop and ask editors to comment on it. I'm strongly opposed to decisions being based on evidence that editors had no opportunity to rebut, but there's a "right" way to do this that allows arbitrators to "do their homework" and editors to have a fair chance to respond.

Question from Banedon

2. Your candidate statement makes it sound like you are seeking to be elected in order to change Arbcom in some way. However from what I've seen, the main purpose of Arbcom isn't what you've described, but rather to rule on conduct disputes. You've said nothing about this in your statement. Why?

   Arbitration cases are quite important, but the Committee has a much larger scope than just handling cases. The Committee has handled only four cases this year, but that hardly means they haven't been doing anything. There is quite a bit of off-wiki work related to a variety of issues. Broadly, anything with privacy concerns tends to come through the Committee. One of the main reasons I'm running is because I think someone on the Committee must figure out the best way forward on handling privacy concerns related to investigating paid editors. That's something squarely within the Committee's scope as stated in WP:ARBPOL.

   The reason I've focused on that one area in my statement is because I see it as the area I can add the most value and the area that most sets me apart from other candidates. The community has made clear its desire for there to be a private process for handling paid editing investigations if those investigations would lead to outing when done publicly on-wiki. It will take an arbitrator to work on the community's behalf to enact that consensus (with further community feedback, of course). As someone who's handled paid editing issues for a while now (at WP:SPI, WP:COIN, and through behind-the-scenes edit filter management), I think I have a unique understanding of the issue that would allow me to get that done.

   I also spoke in my statement about how I'd like to approach cases on editor conduct (more arbitrator involvement at all stages of a case). Of course, I'm happy to answer any questions you have for me about how I'd approach cases if elected.

4. Thanks for the answer. You write in your statement that "Certain recent cases would have run more smoothly if arbitrators had popped in every once-in-a-while and given a status update on how the Committee understood the issues before it." Can you give an example of what you would have done (in any of the recent cases) if you were an arbitrator to this end?

   For example, in Magioladitis 2, an editor spent a large amount of time arguing that the bot policy did not represent a true community consensus and should basically be scrapped by the Committee. Bot operators and BAG members (myself among them) spent quite a bit of time arguing against that idea. Arbitrator Newyorkbrad eventually responded with the obvious answer that the Committee is not a venue to create or change policy by fiat, which was the end of that tangent, more-or-less. This didn't come until near the end of the Workshop, though. I wonder how many hours could have been saved had an arbitrator stepped in during Evidence or even earlier in the Workshop noting that the Committee would not be altering policy by fiat during the case. (In the interest of full disclosure, I was the filer of this case, and therefore automatically a named party. I obviously wouldn't have acted at all in this case due to my involvement, but I think it's a good example for my general point about active arbitration vs. sticking to the shadows.)

6. I'm also curious about how you would've voted on certain contentious issues 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.

   I would have declined the Joefromrandb case request without comment on the conduct itself. The issue had very recently been handled at ANI and no new disruption had occurred after the close there. If there is an attempt to solve an issue at an ANI thread, that closure should be given a chance to be successful before proceeding to arbitration. Community solutions are always better than the Arbitration Committee becoming involved whenever possible.

   I would oppose any remedy directed at a non-party to a case. On the other hand, if arbitrators are active participants in a case from the beginning as I've proposed, they're more likely to identify the appropriate editors who should be included as parties. If the Committee had added those editors as parties way back when Evidence was just getting started, then perhaps that remedy would have been appropriate. It's hard to tell, since that would have affected the course of the whole case. I would never want to form an opinion on a sanction without hearing the involved editor's defense of their actions, so I won't speculate on how the case may have changed.

Question from Noyster

2. Hello Rob. Earlier this year you turned in your admin bit citing some form of threat, [1] although you picked it up again a few weeks later. Unfortunately it appears that Arbitrators experience a high level of unpleasantness (see Iridescent's question to another candidate [2]). With this in mind, how likely is it that you would see out a two-year term as Arbitrator? : Noyster (talk), 09:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   I consider it highly likely. This is something I thought over long and hard before putting my name forward for CheckUser, as functionaries in general get a very large amount of abuse. I'm willing to handle the abuse that comes with being a functionary. What happened in February was essentially an outing scare. Being outed isn't pleasant, but that alone wouldn't drive me off the Committee. I was more concerned for personal safety because, at the time, my office was easily located and in a publicly-accessible building with no security. I also walked home to a building that had minimal security. Most folks surrounding Wikipedia are great, but there certainly are some "crazies", especially among the LTA cases. At the time, I was very concerned about the possibility of someone trying to make good on the death threats I had been receiving in late 2016. My personal situation has since changed greatly, and I both work and live in buildings with substantial security. That greatly eases my concerns.

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.

   I'll try to stick to the last two years so as not to get into ancient history. I think the cases from the past two years are most indicative of what the Committee is likely to handle going forward. The community has gotten substantially better at handling content disputes without kicking things to ArbCom, which is very promising.

   For Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin, I agree with the outcome. It is unacceptable for an administrator to completely ignore an arbitration proceeding related to their own accountability. Per WP:ADMINACCT, Arthur Rubin had the obligation to participate in that case and provide evidence supporting the allegations he made regarding The Rambling Man. Having said that, I think the process dragged on far too long. The case request was posted in late July, the case wasn't opened until a month later, and it didn't close until mid-October. As soon as Arthur Rubin didn't participate in Evidence, the Committee should have sent him an email asking if he intended to participate in the case at all. If he did not respond shortly after that (or responded in the negative), this case could have been cut short by a motion to desysop and close the case. The phases of a case can be quite important when facts or their interpretation are under dispute, but the only relevant fact – that an admin failed to participate in an arbitration case surrounding their own lack of accountability – was indisputable. That alone warrants desysopping, and so I have to wonder why the case dragged on a month after Evidence closed. I doubt the possibility I've raised was even discussed by the Committee, and I think current arbitrators would have been supportive of it had it been discussed.

   For Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man, I agree that The Rambling Man needed to be sanctioned based on his behavior highlighted in Evidence. In particular, I agree that he has a history of incivility and failing to work constructively with others, especially with whom he disagrees. The corresponding sanction was rather terrible, though. It was never very clear whether the Committee intended to provide "AE action" support for enforcing typical WP:CIVIL violations (something that is not inherently unreasonable), whether they intended to prevent extreme civility violations only, or whether they intended to be even more restrictive than WP:CIVIL. Ambiguous or unclear remedies are unlikely to be successful even in the best of circumstances, and TRM's case was not the best of circumstances. Unclear remedies are also unfair to the sanctioned editors, who deserve a clear idea of where the "line" is on their conduct.

   After the case, the Committee was slow to consider an adjustment to this remedy despite recurring issues in enforcing it. It wasn't until a recent September 2017 ARCA that the remedy was changed to something more concrete. It's certainly better than it was, and I would have supported that change. Committee members have told me in the past that ArbCom will never consider amending a case before an issue is formally brought up by a non-arbitrator at ARCA. I think this is a mistake, because it makes them slow to respond to obvious issues. Nothing in WP:ARBPOL or WP:ARBGUIDE prevents a sitting arbitrator from procedurally bringing an issue to ARCA for the Committee to consider, and that is likely the route I would have taken on this case after consulting other arbitrators. Things could have been improved far earlier.

   For Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy, the big "mistake" was considering a remedy on non-parties. It's unacceptable to sanction non-parties, as it deprives them of an opportunity to respond to evidence against them. ARBPOL guarantees "a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made" to editors when cases are private, and I see no reason why the same should be denied to editors in a public case. This would have been fixed had the Committee participated earlier on in the case, as I've advocated in my statement. They could have added the additional editors as parties if their involvement in the dispute had been caught early enough. I probably also would have pushed for Michael Hardy's remedy to be an admonishment rather than a reminder, as I think his conduct was serious enough to warrant it.

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 ) 04:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   This is very risky business, best left to the community. Policies are only successful when they have community buy-in, which is the fundamental reason why the Committee shouldn't be in the business of creating policy. Lately, the Committee has not found itself in a position where it's had to make those difficult decisions, as most disputes have centered around conduct in a "pure" sense. I expect that to continue. I'd much rather leave the role of creating policy to the community. The Committee could possibly facilitate policy discussions in an extreme situation, but it should never create policy by fiat. (As an aside, the BLP case was a rather extraordinary situation where there were major legal concerns that inform what our policy must be. In that case, it makes a bit more sense for the WMF or ArbCom to dictate policy because policies with legal implications are not fully based on consensus. The chances of a similar situation coming up in the future are vanishingly small.)

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 ) 04:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)) reply

   To the extent possible, these appeals should be more open to public eyes. Of course, that's not fully possible when there are any privacy concerns. I'm encouraged by the recent handling of the Betacommand ban appeal. The transparency there is a step in the right direction. At the very least, the Committee could inform the community whenever a ban appeal is filed (or perhaps aggregate such a list at the end of each month, if appeals are too numerous). As for the actual handling of appeals, it's difficult to comment because I can't actually see the process the Committee is currently using. Ban appeals are inherently difficult to assess, and it's impossible to be sure whether one got it "right". With few exceptions, I generally believe indefinite should not mean infinite. At the same time, good faith only goes so far, and banned editors need to credibly show the disruption will not continue if they return.

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. From your statement I think you are likely to see it similarly--have I understood you correctly? Where do you stand? DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)) reply

   This varies based on what part of the Terms of Use we're talking about. I think the Arbitration Committee is solely responsible for handling any behavioral issues that involve private information. To the extent this overlaps with the Terms of Use, then yes, the Committee should enforce the Terms of Use. It's worth noting they can do that directly or by delegating that authority to a functionary group, and I generally prefer the latter approach for an issue as large as paid editing.

   Having said that, there are many other Terms of Use issues that are far beyond the scope of the Committee. For instance, no-one on the Committee is even remotely qualified to handle child protection, which is better handled by the WMF.

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 ) 04:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)) reply

   I'm very strongly against any weakening or reinterpretation of our policy against outing. Our policy against outing protects good-faith editors because it is such a bright line. When you introduce grey areas by allowing the outing of bad-faith editors, then administrators have to pause and evaluate whether an editor is operating in good-faith or not before revision deleting or oversighting private information. By the time that assessment is made, the damage from outing has already been done. It can't be reversed. It's worth noting that "Soliciting personally identifiable information for purposes of ... violation of privacy" is explicitly against the Terms of Use, so I don't believe we actually can reinterpret the outing policy without consulting Legal.

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.

   I would strongly oppose removing the selection of functionaries from the Arbitration Committee's scope and going toward a community election process. RfA has far too many problems to use the same model to select functionaries with access to highly-sensitive information. It's not possible for functionaries to be removed by the community, as the community has no access to the details necessitating removal. I'd be receptive to considering a proposal with many more details, but I'm highly skeptical I would ever support one. (I'm not commenting on the removal of point 4, because the Foundation will never agree to assume such matters. One of the biggest issues facing the Committee is an inability to get the Foundation to do anything at all. It was a battle to get them to handle child protection, for instance, and that's something that should have been obviously Foundation work from the get-go.)

   I would oppose moving auditing of CheckUsers and Oversighters to being handled entirely by the Ombudsman Commission. The Ombudsman Commission has no responsibility to enforce the English Wikipedia's CheckUser policy, only the meta policy, so they are not adequate to hear all CU-related complaints. I'm supportive of a formal scope for all cases. I'd be supportive of reconsidering how we structure our cases, but I think full overlap of Evidence and Workshop isn't a good idea. Workshop proposals need to be based on the totality of evidence, not on the evidence submitted in the first few days. This would effectively reduce the time an editor has to respond to an allegation to near-zero if evidence is submitted in the last couple days. That's something I'm strongly against. Due process is important, and I don't think this proposal (as written) would preserve it. I'd much rather condense cases by reducing the time between Workshop and Proposed decision and greatly increasing arbitrator participation in Workshop. If arbs are active at the workshop, the proposed decision should evolve organically (and more transparently!) to the point we won't need to take forever drafting and discussing it after Workshop. I would never support barring non-parties from presenting evidence at a case; this serves only to reduce the amount of information available to arbitrators when making a decision, resulting in worse decisions.

   The due process motion has me conflicted. Specifically, it's unclear to me whether this is removing the ability of an individual administrator to make an AE action or block. It reads like it does, and if so, I would oppose it. This would effectively remove discretionary sanctions as a useful tool to prevent disruption in difficult areas. On the other hand, I have seen a few "flash discussions" that I've found objectionable. This could possibly be reworked into something I'd support. It's worth noting that much of the due process for discretionary sanctions/arbitration enforcement comes through appeals, and I would be extremely supportive of strengthening the due process requirements surrounding appeals only.

   I'm undecided on the community motion section. What is the advantage of this system versus an editor approaching an arbitrator directly with a proposed motion? Their "endorsement" would be simply posting it if they're supportive. I've done this in the past as a community member with pretty good success.

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) 06:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   In terms of content-related disputes, not a whole lot. I'm encouraged to see almost no conduct issues arising from content-related disputes coming to the Arbitration Committee over the past year. The community has been very successful in handling things, including applying general sanctions without the need for an ArbCom case when appropriate (e.g. WP:GS/SCW). I'd be more than happy to see the Committee never accept another case along those lines again, so long as the community remains effective in that area.

   That leaves us with two areas I see the Committee as adding value at the moment: administrator conduct cases and matters involving private information. Given privacy concerns and our outing policy, matters involving private information need to be handled by a body like the Arbitration Committee. This includes overseeing the functionaries to ensure editor privacy is being treated with the appropriate respect. As for administrator conduct, the Committee is the only venue to assess whether an administrator should lose access to the tools. If the community developed an alternative community-based desysopping procedure, I'd almost certainly support it, but that's proven so difficult that I doubt it's coming in the near future. The Committee can add value there for the time being.

   Since I haven't had a chance to mention this previously, I'll also give my brief thoughts on how the Committee should approach administrator conduct cases. An editor receives access to the administrator tools when the community trusts their judgement and ability to use them to improve the encyclopedia. When that trust is lost due to either significant or repeated lapses in judgement, desysopping should be on the table. This is perhaps the area where I think the "Super Mario Problem" has been most severe in recent years. If an admin consistently cannot abide by the standards we would expect of even a newer editor, they should not be an admin. If anything, the standards for everyday conduct by administrators should be higher, given their position of trust. There have been recent cases where an admin exhibited conduct that would get a new editor outright banned, but since they were an administrator, they received only minor restrictions and an admonishment that future issues may result in desysopping. That's unacceptable; at the point where a newer editor would be removed from the site entirely, desysopping is the minimum.

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)} 00:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   Whether the Committee itself should enforce the Terms of Use is complicated, but if it doesn’t, it should delegate such authority to a functionary group it oversees. Either way, the Committee should make sure someone with the ability to review and act on private information is handling it. All undisclosed paid editors should be blocked, given our policy forbidding that as well as the ToU. No rights holders may use their rights in exchange for pay, be they an admin or even a rollbacker. I could see an admin being a Wikipedian-in-Residence, but I struggle to see how an admin could keep the tools and edit for a for-profit company at the same time. Even if they have the best intentions, they’ll eventually say something that looks like them wielding influence for their employer. COIN is extremely useful, and I’ve been doing a good deal of work there myself since becoming a CheckUser (some on-wiki, some behind the scenes).

Question from Uanfala

2. Hi, and thank your for running! In your statement you express interest in tackling the problem with paid editing. I would like to hear your thoughts about the block of User:Carolineneil for undisclosed paid editing. This was an academic who had commissioned wikipedia articles on several niche scientific topics, as part of a study on the impact of wikipedia on the scientific literature. In your opinion, did that user violate the letter of WP:PAID, its spirit, or both? – Uanfala 01:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply

   I actually made that block, so I do believe that editor violated our policy on paid editing. The paper published based on this incident stated a research assistant created articles at the direction of the academics. That research assistant was either paid or functioning as an intern of sorts. Both are explicitly covered by the word of our paid-contribution disclosure policy.

   We expect Wikipedians-in-Residence to disclose, so I see no reason why we wouldn't expect the same of a research assistant. Given that comparison, I think they also violated the spirit/common practice of the policy. Whether this should be covered by our policy is quite a separate matter. That's for the community to figure out, not an individual administrator and certainly not the Arbitration Committee. I've argued for a more clear definition of paid editing in the past, but that's not something ArbCom can or should decide upon.

Questions from Dratman

2. Could you please explain the need and purpose, as you see it, for "a few doppelganger accounts registered to prevent impersonation" and for "BU RoBOT, my bot"? Thank you. Dratman ( talk) 21:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

   Hi Dratman. The doppelganger accounts are accounts registered solely to prevent other editors from using them to impersonate me. For instance, I registered BU Rob31 solely to prevent someone else from doing so and tricking other editors into thinking they were me. None of the doppelganger accounts have any edits at all; I've only ever used this account for manual edits. When I became an administrator, I considered it pertinent to do this, as admins are often impersonated by abusive editors.

   As for my bot, BU RoBOT is used to carry out tasks that can be fully automated and have community consensus to be performed. These are often very simple edits that help maintain the encyclopedia and do not need human review to be performed. This frees up human editors, myself included, to perform the more tricky business of content creation and administrative work that requires human judgement to complete. All edits from my bot have been approved through the appropriate process ( WP:BRFA). You can see the full list of tasks my bot has been used for at User:BU RoBOT. Most of the tasks relate to tagging pages so WikiProjects can more easily follow their content, carrying out consensus reached at TfD discussions, and making our articles more accessible to readers with disabilities that require them to use screen readers.

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} 01:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

   First, it's worth noting that this is not in the scope of the Arbitration Committee, so the best (though perhaps unsatisfying) answer I can give you is that I would do nothing about this as an arbitrator. The Arbitration Policy makes clear that arbitration handles "serious conduct disputes", not content disputes, and is "not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat". The community is solely responsible for determining our inclusion criteria.

   To the point of your question, the current community inclusion standard is notability, which requires an article subject to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". These sources do not have to be online, but they do have to exist. If one were to want to change this guideline, a wide-scale Requests for comment would be necessary. I don't consider a suggestion to do away with notability likely to receive any community support.

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) 02:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

   Policy is created through consensus. Consensus can't be "accidental"; the community has either expressed strong approval of something being in a policy or not. If the policy's wording does not accurately represent what the consensus actually was, then the wording is incorrect and should be changed to reflect the community consensus. There is no loophole by which we get to ignore consensus because the policy's wording was slightly mistaken. In that sense, I favor Viewpoint 2. Having said that, there's a very large difference between a wording unrepresentative of consensus (due to some error) and an untested consensus on something. If someone can't go back to the discussion that gave rise to the policy and find very clear evidence of support for something, we should not start guessing about intent behind the discussion or what the participants would have supported, had it been proposed. In this sense, I favor Viewpoint 1. The short answer is that consensus and discussion behind the policy matter more than exact wording, but I'm not about to start trying to read minds.