From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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


Questions from Carrite

  2. Hello, and thank you for running for ArbCom. There are a number of off-wiki venues for criticism of Wikipedia content, policy, processes, and participants. Such sites include Wikipediocracy, Genderdesk, Wikipedia Sucks!, Wikipedia Review (mark 2), and Reddit. Do you read content or participate by writing at any of these venues? If so, which? Do you feel that such sites have positive value in identifying and correcting such problems and abuses that emerge at Wikipedia or do you feel that such sites are wholly negative in essence, without redeeming value? Carrite ( talk) 22:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I have never written on any of them. I read some from time to time, and I think they have the potential of assisting the positive development of WP. Their positive effect would be greater if they were more responsible. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  4. The Wikimedia foundation began issuing site bans (“SanFranBans”) of Wikipedians deemed unacceptable for participation several years ago, beginning by making a case for such exclusions on child protection grounds, but gradually disposing of inconvenient individuals for a range of other transparently obvious reasons. These exclusions are made by one or a very few individuals with no oversight and no process for appeal. Do you feel that this growing trend of WMF permanently banning individuals from participation on all Wikimedia projects is problematic, or is this intervention beneficial? Do you feel that each and every ban so far implemented by San Francisco has been justified? Do you feel that San Francisco banning individuals for reasons beyond child protection or potential physical violence is an intervention into Arbcom's purview as Wikipedia's discipline committee? Carrite ( talk) 22:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    As I understand it from discussions, they are made in an extremely responsible manner, at the initiative of Trust and Safety and with the consultation of Legal. The arb com has monthly discussions with people from those teams, and there is some degree of exchange of information. On the basis of what I have seen, I have great confidence in the people involved. I only know about those cases which have originated from arb com and consequently been discussed with us; as we brought them to their attention, I obviously consider the actions justified, but I can of course not say anything more specific . DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  6. Earlier today you posted this on Joe Roe's Talk Page: "I think we need new people there, which is one of the reasons I decided not to run again. thanks for running. DGG 19:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)" What has changed in the last four hours? Carrite ( talk) 23:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    requests from others, and a reconsideration of whether I might add some necessary degree of balance. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC) . reply
Thank you for your answers. Carrite ( talk) 06:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from Peacemaker67

  2. Given the outcomes of the German War Effort case this last year, and the lack of prior attempts at dealing with the identified issues via the dramaboards, would you have voted differently regarding taking the case on if you had your time again?
    I think the case was eminently suitable for arb com, as it seemed very unlikely to be resolved in any other manner. And I think we were successful in helping resolve the issues. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from Gerda Arendt

  2. Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here?
    I see her posting as an magnificent demonstration of the need for context, rather than simply going by a list of forbidden words. Humor and satire are very difficult to do properly at WP, but she was able to do it. I can appreciate it, but I could never have equalled it. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from 28bytes

  2. What are your thoughts on this situation? In general, what factors do you think the committee should take into consideration when deciding whether to pursue an allegation that a high-profile editor is using a sockpuppet account to evade a topic ban? Did the committee make the right decision in this case? (Additional context here.)
    One of the functions of arb com is to deal with complaints about well-established users, on the principles that 1/ the people there are relatively invulnerable to being disliked, 2/that collective decision making by vote means nobody can be individually blamed. The problem is judging when a complaint is in good faith. Arb com members individually or collectively have no way of judging this any more than anyone else--when interaction is limited to text postings on a wiki, even the very weak human ability to recognize dishonesty is helpless. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  4. Recently an editor placed links to offsite court documents involving an ArbCom candidate on that candidate's question page. Without commenting on this specific case (unless you want to), what factors would you take into consideration when determining whether to allow or suppress similar links in an ArbCom election, or an RFA, or an AN/I report?
    As I am a candidate at the same election, I can only comment generally that I judge the seriousness of outing by whether it actually has the potential to do harm.

Questions from David Tornheim

  2. You seem to have a particular interest in civility. Can you speak more to your work in the past and future towards improving civility?
    I can best point to the responses I give to challenges on my talk page: explain patiently in detail, and be willing to admit error. It works very well in dealing with people who are angry. See also what I wrote many years ago on my user page. I also point ot my own rule not to reply more than twice in an argument--if I haven't convinced people by then, I never will. As for persuading others to do likewise, it takes many years. We have gone very far from the early years, and mainly need to keep going. DGG ( talk) 19:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. I have heard many editors and admins complain about significant problems with WP:AN/I and other dispute resolution forums. Do you feel WP:AN/I has major problems? If so, can you speak to them?
    I'm speaking from observation more than experience: I have never brought anything to ANI, I almost always advise people to never bring problems thereI vey rarely even comment. It seems the worst of all possible processes--it makes it very easy to rush to judgment, and it almost as easy to discuss indefinitely without resolution. What it never does it provide a fair hearing. The only things it can deal with is the obvious, that never actually need to be brought there. I do have a partial solution for ANI: clerked discussions. The proposal was supported by nobody, because it was thought to add a level of bureaucracy. I still think a little formalization can avoid a free for all, and a pile-on. . And when I came here, we had an intermediate process: WP:RFCU, Requests for comment user. It almost never actually solved anything, but it gave people a place to vent, after which there can be a more focussed process. .We discontinued it because of its lack of results without considering whether it nonetheless served a purpose. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  6. As an ArbCom member do you try to handle some disputes in a way different than is typical of WP:AN/I that you feel is more effective?
    The best thing about ArbCom is that it is very different from ANI: It is almost impossible to move too quickly, it provides for a structured proportional hearing, it lets people comment relatively free from time pressure, it provides an opportunity for trying out solutions and reaching compromise, and it provides in the end a final settlement, because it decides by a numerical ballot. Arb com does have problems to match its virtues: it cannot move quickly even when it needs to, it has never found a way to have the equivalent of an abbreviated case, it requires very broad agreement to actually come to a conclusion, and it only obtains its ability to compromise by holding preliminary discussions in private, with the inevitable effect that no one outside can really trust it. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  8. As a member of ArbCom what role might you (and ArbCom) play in fixing any endemic problems at WP:AN/I and other dispute resolution forums?
    As I mentioned above, arb com should do more to keep serious matters in its own hands. It's not a virtue to have very few cases if it adds to the disruption elsewhere. This applies in my opinion equally to Arbitration enforcement. Arb com tends not to realize that for problems which will continue to present themselves, it is not the arb com decisions that give results, but how they are applied.``
  10. You had not weighed in on this RfC asking 'Should the "repetitive usage" of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable"?’  If you had, what would be your answer? Any further comments on that WP:RfC?
    The close to that afc said it all. I commented to the closer that their close should be of great help to future arb coms. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  12. According to our article, Encyclopædia Britannica has a "critical reputation for general excellence". (See reputation). If so, can you explain why Britannica's article on acupuncture bears almost no resemblance to our article on acupuncture? Britannica suggests that it is useful alleviating pain. Our article casts a negative cloud, describing it as a pseudoscience, leaving the impression there is little reason to believe it is effective for treating even pain.
    The evidence that EB and WP is of about equal accuracy comes from a number of years back; we have improved since then. But looking at it as a librarian, the EB has a tendency to make general judgments in circumstances where we do not (you will notice that our quote says "has a critical reputation for general excellence" not "is generally excellent" -- we are, as we say we do, properly reporting on its reputation, not making a judgement about either its general quality much less its quality in any particular subject. The EB also generally gives minimal discussion of detail, and minimal references, while our articles especially on subjects like this try to give very extensive references. The EB tells people what to think; we give people material from which they can draw their own conclusions. I'd judge that the main merit of the EB is that the level of writing is more consistently readable--but it is easier to be readable when not going into disputed detail. Our article does use the word pseudoscience--this is based on a arb com decision many years ago Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, and I disagreed somewhat with some of its conclusions. both then and now. then and disagree considerably with the way it is used now. What I disagree with is the attempt to classified things as either pseudoscience of not. Things are pseudoscientific to various degrees. It is impossible in a short phrase to correct express the essence of many things, and I consider that our practice of trying to do so in lede paragraphs--much less in initial sentences-- often leads to unnecessary disputes about matters which cannot accurately be expressed in a few words. In particular, the boundaries between the various forms of speculative and scientific fields are not sharp, and thee is no clear way of expressing them in a single word. Personally, I regard acupuncture as almost certainly useless, and I think that almost everyone who, like myself, know some medicine or biology, do also. But I regard its use to have at least some minimal evidence that needs to be taken into account. (You will notice my qualifiers. )
  14. The U.S. National Institute of Health explains Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Health here. Is it appropriate for our articles to describe these treatments in WP:Wikivoice as pseudoscience? Is it appropriate to use Stephen Barrett's work and publication in Quackwatch as a primary source to discredit such treatments rather than publication in highly respected peer-reviewed medical journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine?
    If you read the NIH statement carefully, you will observe that it makes considerable distinctions between different practices. No one really doubts that psychological wellbeing has an effect on physiial health, including such things as the degree to which pain is bothersome, nor that psychological well being can be affected by many things, not all of them rational. For many of these there is no rational mode of investigation; for all of them, and all of conventional medicine also, there are extremely important non quantifiable factors, such as the placebo effect (which it has recently been suggested may have a physical basis), and the degree of confidence in the healer. No one would say we can not be benefiting by practices we cannot yet understand scientifically. But the essence of rationality is the realization that a scientific approach to all of these factors is the best way to establish understanding and progress, rather than relying on anecdotes, charisma, and obvious absurdities. To the extent an encyclopedia is useful it is to promote rational thought, and will inevitably follow such approaches. Further, in the last 5 or 10 years there is a better understanding, by now public as well as academic, of the limitations on scientific medical research as it is normally practiced. Unfortunately, the sort of analysis that is involved here can get very technical, in terms of understanding both the experimental and the statistical methodology. An even greater confounding factor is the will to believe what one wishes to be true, and the pressure which groups believing in totally irrational and even blatantly harmful practice, and established economic interests--including the established economic interest of organized medicine-- can have over politics, and the extent to which politics and direct economic interests can affect what is supposed to be impartial academic and especially government research. This realization casts a considerable doubt over a great deal of the biomedical and psychological literature, and all honest and aware practitioners of science and medicine know this. The very term "gold standard" is an interesting metaphor, for it is based upon the monetary use of the gold standard, an outdated and repressive economic theory of ancient origin and very limited rationality. The presentation is of science of medicine in WP is very difficult, for it is necessary to both explain the current state of knowledge accurately, and also its limitations. Very few people here can get it right. I know enough to realize when it is being done inadequately, but probably not enough to do it better. There are two approaches: one is to give up on rationality, and accept the idea that everyone has their own truth and that they are all equal, or accessible only thru mystical processes, and the other is to actually rely on the proven success of the scientific method. Only the later is compatible with the idea of an encyclopedia . To oversimplify, this is the ancient battle between Plato and Aristotle. Plato, to my eye , reads much better, but that has no bearing on validity. Encyclopedias have their roots in Aristotle. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from Fram

  2. During the arbcom unban / community reban of User:Guido den Broeder, Arbcom first never announced the unban or the accompanying restrictions (never mind discussing this prior to unbanning a known troublemaker), and when things went downhill, refused to even make public how each arbcom member had voted with regards to the unblock. You are one of the members then who has, to my knowledge, never declared your position in this. This is not about making private communications public, this is bacis accountability: if we don't know who supported which position in an ArbCom decision (and preferably why), we have no way of judging your actions there. What was your position on the Guido den Broeder unban, and what (if anything) would you do differently in similar situations? Fram ( talk) 07:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I do not really recall the case, and I do not remember if we took a formal vote. I have in general supported announcing the votes in most circumstances. Not announcing such votes is one of the over-protective practices I encountered when I joined the committee. My proposal to announce them attracted little support at the time; but I should probably follow it up, as views on the committee has changed to some degree about how much openness is desirable. DGG ( talk ) 09:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  4. Totally not a loaded question. Do you think it is a good idea for one person to investigate the actions of another person, when both persons are standing in the same election in direct competition, and when the investigated actions are directly related to that election? Bonus question: is this potential lap in judgment and self-awareness made worse when two other persons in the exact same position did the right thing and recused from the investigation as long as the conflict of interest remained?
    I think you are referring specifically to matters involving this election, and in particular involving one of the candidates. My own view is that none of the candidates here are likely to want to be an arb so intensely as to want to push out another candidate to improve their chances. They are more likely to have the same concerns as anyone not running would have, which is whether a candidate is suitable. Nonetheless, as people may think otherwise, it is necessary to recuse. One of the points of having a large committee is to deal with this sort of problem. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Collect

  2. Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?
    No. We open a case to see first, if a sanction will be necessary, and if so, then to decide what it should be. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC) . reply
  4. If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits?
    Opposing edits is not cause for recusal, unless the feeling becomes personal. The only time I was asked to recuse I did, but I first alerted the individual that my absence from the case would not necessarily benefit them--and so it proved, for i would have supported a weaker remedy than the committee decided.. There are of course situations of personal animosity which might justify recusal, but an arb should not be a person who is likely to get into such an intensity of personal conflict. common. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  6. Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually far from home for an extended period, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow fully reasoned responses to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"?
    For all of this , it depends on the circumstances. Usually our error is more likely to be accepting indefinite delays. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Oshwah

  2. Other than having the adequate technical skills and knowledge required, and having the level of experience consistent with being granted the role(s), what other specific areas, aspects, skills, and/or traits would you look for and personally want to see in a candidate who is applying to be appointed as a CheckUser or Oversighter? What specific areas (outside of knowledge and skill, experience) in an otherwise-good candidate would cause you to halt, make a complete about-face, and oppose their candidacy for Checkuser or Oversighter if you were to see or find it?
    What is needed is good judgment and discretion. This has to be judged from their prior experience at WP.

Question from Feminist

  2. How can Wikipedia better communicate its processes to outsiders?
    If you mean our processes at arb com, there is no way of communicating them clearly, because we are trying to do more than we can rationally accomplish, and our work is based upon a unverbalized system of successive approximation. If you mean our processes generally, then (after writing and erasing multiple attempts at stating it) I think it comes down to the same thing. We have a system based upon the assumption that people of good will can cooperate in an ego-free environment, and we're trying use it in an environment where many of the participants do not really merit that description. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your answer. feminist ( talk) 10:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Alex Shih

  2. Do you agree with Courcelles's answer to my question here ( [1]), in particular the part about the level of conduct on the mailing list "should be held in an atmosphere or respect for each other, the matter under discussion, and respect for non-subscribers who are mentioned". Has this always been your approach? If yes, what will you do, if re-elected, to ensure this expected level of conduct continues to be maintained on the mailing list?
    I think that in general we have been showing respect and consideration to people whom we discuss there. However, some of the committee sometimes do make derogatory comments when dealing with persistent trolls ; I understand the temptation to relive the anxiety involved in dealing with them, but this is not my style. DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  4. As a member of the committee, is it ever acceptable deceive the community unnecessarily for the purpose of presenting the committee in a better light?
    I don't think this is well worded. Of course it is by definition not appropriate to unnecessarily deceive the committee, The real question is whether it is acceptable to not tell the whole truth to the community in dealing with privacy matters, Sometimes it is necessary to do so, or the private matters will no longer be private. You are right that this can create a problem, because it always arouses the suspicion we might not be dealing with the question fairly. I see no way around this: we are the appropriate group to deal with privacy related matters, and to do this it is often essential not to release key information leading to a decision. If we did not do this, we would be irresponsible to true privacy concerns. There is in some cases no alternative but to trust us. I do not see how it can be otherwisem if matters involving privacy are to be dealt with at all. DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  6. You are known for your hard stance against undisclosed paid editing, and as you explained in the statement that this was not always a popular stance shared by all members of the committee. Why do you think terms of use violations were being openly tolerated by the committee as implied? As I am under the impression that many members of the committee are still likely ambivalent about the significance of UPE, what has changed and would you care to elaborate about this soon to be announced new procedure?
    I'm glad someon asked this, to give me an opportunity to explain. The view 4 years ago was that the Foundation was placing a burden on the committee to enforce foundation rules that were not community rules; that if it wanted to set policy, it should enforce it by itself. It was felt that the committee had no special expertise here, and that effective investigation required skills the committee did not possess, The change came about as the committee realized that the community did want these rules enforced, and as it was realized that the privacy aspects made it appropriate to be within our remit. It was recognized that we did receive complaints that people had been solicited by paid editors, and in some cases deliberately scammed. Not all members of the committee want to work on this actively, and the breakthrough was the decision to involve other members of the functionaries team also, as it was a logical extension of checkuser, and as all functionaries had signed the privacy policy; this will give us enough interested people, I shall be engaged in this as a member of the committee if elected, or as a functionary otherwise, Our practices will evolve -- the only thing certain is that the coordination will by means of an OTRS queue, DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Cinderella157

  2. Arb policy makes a requirement for transparency and Arb cases make an explicit statement of intent to reach a "fair" decision.
    1. What are, in your opinion, the "principles and spirit" (per WP:5P5) that underpin the policy and statement?
    2. The policy in particular, requires "detailed rationales for decisions related to cases". Please comment on this duty as it might apply to you (say, as a drafting arbitrator) and the committee as a whole, in respect to how this duty is discharged (noting the underlying principles), particularly where the evidence presented might be in conflict.
    3. Do you consider that this duty has been complied with and what might you do to improve compliance?
    I think we do try to explain. Sometimes the explanation is in the proposed decision page. .
  4. There is something of a theme in questions regarding civility (and personal attacks). My question pertains to the conduct of cases (starting at the request phase) and not to cases about civility and personal attacks. I note that an ArbCom case is a place to address grievances and it is appropriate to make reasonable allegations in "good faith" supported by links. WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL is relevant.
    1. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements in a case that contained derogatory gender-related comments by way of commentary?
    2. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements/submissions (such as evidence) in a case that were a significant misrepresentation of context? While this is uncivil, in such a context, I believe that it might rise to the level of a personal attack by virtue of the potential consequences if the statement/submission is taken at face value.
    3. While Arbs are not infallible, the community endowers Arbs with significant power and trust, and with virtually no recourse. What would be your expectations and your actions where an Arb has made an uncivil comment (rising to the level of a personal attack) openly in the course of a case?
    (1 and 2) We have deliberately delegated much of this to the Clerks; this has proved quite successful. But the point of arb com is that the arbs can and do use their independent judgment. (3) of course there is recourse--we are often asked to amend the decisions in a case ,and often we do. But with respect to appeals,, all appeals would come before some other group of humans , who would also be fallible. At some point someone has to take final responsibility. DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  6. In my assessment of Civil POV pushing: this behaviour is not readily apparent to those not affected; it requires a "body" of evidence over an extended period to establish a case; and, ArbCom has a poor record in dealing with it – perhaps, because of the dealing with the amount of evidence to sift through or because restrictions on the size of submissions. Please comment, with any insights or solutions you might offer. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk)
    As the essay Civil POV pushing explains, there is no clear distinction between it and ordinary editing. On a controversial topic, almost every substantial editor does have a POV, or else they would not be interested in editing it in a significant way. This will affect their editing, even though they may not be aware of it. The Wikipedia method of editing deals with this by expecting editors with different points of view to cooperate in producing in a neutral article. But in some fields, I do not think there even is a NPOV, and all we can do is present all significant alternate points of view. Because of all of this, there is never going to be a clear way the Committee or any other people of WP can define when people are pushing too hard, or properly deal with it. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Guerillero

Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. I am rehashing most of my 2015 questions because I don't think that these issues have been resolved over the past three years. Enjoy!

Current Disputes and Cases

  2. What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?
    Essentially, as a last resort if it appears that nothing else will stop disruption. The most common circumstances are where it extends over more than one topic, when someone under a topic ban has repeatedly tried to exceed the limits, when shorter blocks have failed to be effective, or when the conduct is so greatly outside our standards that the strongest possible response is needed. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  4. Nearly every case involves violations of the civility policy in some way, shape, or form. At one time, a remedy called a "Civility Parole" existed but it fell out of vogue. Today, the only tools in the current Arbitrator's toolboxes to deal with civility issues are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. What new and creative ways would you bring to the table to solve this problem?
    The most useful remedy is an interaction ban, ad it should be used more frequently. It often clarifies matters to see which of the parties to a dispute accept it gracefully. There have been occasional bans from talk pages only, which can work in selected circumstances. There has sometimes been effective use when granting an appeal, of giving a final warning, when it is made unmistakably clear that it is final. There has also been use of an off-wiki discussion with the person involved. It is frequently the case that even for a quite difficult person, someone on the committee knows them. There are many things that can be more effectively communicated personally than in writing. I've done it myself with committee knowledge in one or two instances. We can probably think of more. For example, I would like to try a limitation to one or two comments a day, over the entire wiki. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  6. Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?
    Yes, it exists, and arb com is I think slightly more willing to deal with it. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  8. Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?
    Warning, most certainly. And I think even admonishments do have an effect . I know I would take it very seriously; if anything I had done was to result in a formal admonishment, and I have known other people to change their behavior also in such cases. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Insider Baseball

  2. Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?
    Yes. It can clarify matters to have successive stages of discussion, so issues can be more precisely defined. It isn't having a workshop that causes delays. It's the need for a sufficient number of arbs to vote., and, for the most delayed cases, sometimes the difficulty in findingd a solution. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from Liz

  2. Hello, David. As you have previously served or are currently serving on the Arbitration Committee, will you state what you believe is biggest misconception most editors have about how ARBCOM works? What do you think editors SHOULD know about the operation of ARBCOM and how arbitrators collaborate that we probably don't realize? Any aspect of ARBCOM's operation that you would change if you could? Thanks and good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    (1) there is still the idea from earlier years that the actual cases are the largest part or only part of the work. Rather, the ban appeals are, and since the ones appropriate for us to deal with often involve privacy, they need to be handled off-wiki. (2) Even for the ,matters dealt with off-wiki, it should be possible to increase transparency: there normally can be some public disclosure of our action. If the action we took was disputed internally, the internal disagreement should be settled by vote, and the vote should if possible be given, including the names of the arbs. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from Atsme

  2. Your years of service as an arb leave me with only one question to ask - are you sure you want to do this again?
    }As is obvious, I only decided at the last minute. The decisive factor was realizing that the likely composition of the committee might be sympathetic to my way of looking at things, which increases the likelihood of actuallly making a difference there. DGG ( talk ) 09:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from Beyond My Ken

  2. Lots o' people seem to think this election is about civility, for some reason. ArbCom deals with the behavior of editors, of course, so civility will often play a part in the cases that are requested, and in those that are accepted and adjudicated, but damaging the integrity of the encyclopedia is also a behavioral issue, and it's one that has the potential for sinking Wikipedia by destroying the public's faith in the information we provide. Fortunately, much of the NPOV, racist, sexist, ethnic-biased and nationalistic edits and editors get caught by editors and admins, and those cases never reach the Committee, but I'm concerned that our current apparent fixation on civility might be distracting us from the more serious problem of NPOV editing. ArbCom has done a great deal -- with Discretionary Sanctions -- in trying to control this, but I wonder if there isn't more that can be done. Do you have any thoughts about how the Committee can assist the community -- both editors and admins -- to protect the integrity of our product?
    Most of this is not the remit of the committee. But we can help by making sure the terms of use with respect to paid editors are enforced, because they are the worst examples of POV editing. And what is also within our remit is perennial disputes on specific topics, and we have been reasonably successful with some, such as American Politics but very unsuccessful with others, such as Palestine-Israel articles. DGG ( talk ) 10:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from Amanda

  2. If there was a block appeal to ArbCom by email for an indefinitely blocked user for spamming or BLP violations, and you were the one to reply to the user, how would you handle it? Would you discuss the block on the list first?
    All requests should be discussed on the list. We're a committee, and should not be acting in our arb role as individuals. DGG ( talk ) 10:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  4. Can you provide one diff of a well reasoned argument where you disagreed with the majority and took an unpopular view? The more recent, the more unpopular, the better.
    See most recently, my dissents and abstains at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Proposed decision, where I thought a stronger statement on sourcing policy was warranted. DGG ( talk ) 10:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC) . reply
  6. Are you going to read each and every ArbCom email that comes across your desk?
    I do now, and I would continue to. That does not mean I comment on them all. In practice, there are a few members who tend to comment on routine requests for overturning bans, and the rest of us comment only on the ones that raise substantial questions. DGG ( talk ) 10:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC) (actually, it more realistic to say that I almost always do now, and that I hope to continue DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    (a
  8. Admin socking is a rare area ArbCom has the remit to deal with. If your brought a case of admin socking, are you willing to go through the investigatory process and potentially vote to desysop an admin? Especially if your met with silence (or a lack of a defense) from the admin?
    This and similar violations of policy by admins are our special role. There is however a problem in determining whether such complaints are in good faith. DGG ( talk ) 10:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  10. How familiar are you with the privacy policy and access to non-public data policy? What is one part you find interesting about one of them and why?
    Quite familiar, and now discussing the text with the WMF. I'm concerned that the policy requires in some cases a prior notice to the WMF, because they are notoriously slow in dealing with such problems. DGG ( talk ) 10:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
yes, but I think I worded my answers with some qualifiers. In particular, I know that earlier committees have been accused of unwillingness to deal with admin socking, and that there is a recent instance of people urging us to take action which we did not take because of doubts about the accusation. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question by K.e.coffman

  2. With the rise of far-right and hate groups online, are you concerned that editors espousing such beliefs may try (or are already attempting) to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for propaganda? Why or why not? If yes, what role do you think ArbCom could play in counteracting their influence on Wikipedia? K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    People with all varieties of political views try to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for propaganda. The relevant rules are WP:NPOV and NOTPROMOTION. This applies equally to views most of us favor, and those we detest. When I first came here, I said on my user page, that "the ideological basis of my work here [is] an extremely strong opinion that the uninhibited free play of ideas is essential to a free society and to humanity in general. (I basically follow J.S. Mill in this.) ... We are responsible for presenting information accurately and honestly, not for what people will do with it. The way to prevent them from interpreting it wrong, is to present it better, not to conceal it." [] /info/en/?search=User:DGG#Biases]. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC) But for an indication of how I would apply this, see my comments in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Proposed decision . Being inclusive of all points of view does not mean we should accept biased presentation of them. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from User:Smallbones

  2. Could you discuss your general philosophy toward enforcing our rules on undisclosed paid editing? Another candidate has said that our rules on UPE are weak, but the terms of use are quite specific: UPE is prohibited. What level of "proof" is required before you'd ban somebody for paid editing? Do admins need to follow these rules, or should they be held to a higher standard?
    UPE is prohibited, as a violation of the WMF terms of use. We can make additional restrictions beyond that, and we do in our COI policy. Even were it not against the TOU, I would consider it a violation of our COI policy and our general practice about good faith editing. I consider a ban for UPE appropriate and indeed necessary, though I would give the editor the opportunity to declare. It is disputed whether it is necessary to declare previous editing, or just current and future. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  4. This summer I sent a private complaint to arbcom about an administrator who had very obviously inserted material from one of his employer's press releases into the article about the company without making a COI or Paid Editing disclosure. The arbcom ruling was that the admin was not paid editor, but had a conflict of interest. He was not required to declare the COI. I was not informed about how the proceedings were being conducted, or who actually voted on the decision, or why the admin was not considered to be a paid editor, or even why he did not have to declare his COI. I was informed in a very short email signed by a single arb when the decision had been made, but there was very little information in the email. My request for clarification didn't result in any clarification. I understand you can't comment on the case itself, but can you comment on how such a case should be conducted?
    A requirement to declare all possible COI in all cases is not always fully compatible with the concept of anonymity. Since we have a fundamental commitment to protecting anonymity, we need to make distinctions for what type of COI requires declaration, and just how much declaration it requires. There is no easy solution for this, and I cannot imagine any rule here which will not have large nebulous zones. For commercial organizations,, there is a question about what roles in the company amount to being a paid editor. Being an ordinary employee of a company not connected with the sales or PR functions of the company does not present as much of a COI as one from writing about the company's products as it does for their PR manager, but there are intermediate situations, and this was one of them. I agree we should have found a way to post something in public. And, personally, I would support a policy that no one engaged in paid editing, even declared paid editing, could be an admin. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Hijiri88

  2. What is your opinion on the essay WP:CPUSH, and do you think ArbCom should take special care in handling the kind of cases it is describing in the future?
    These are difficult because there is often no unambiguous line beyond which editing becomes POV pushing.. It is true that Arb Com in the past has had great difficulty defining this line. This has sometimes been difficult with scientific subjects, where there is at least a usually clear standard of the accepted position, but it can be much more difficult in articles involving social issues. I am concerned that too strong action here can amount to censorship of unpopular views. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC) . reply
  4. Do you still (sorry, I didn't notice until just now that you don't seem to have actually voted or explicitly stated that you supported the FoF in question; that said, writing a comment and not explicitly opposing would seem to imply "tacit approval") agree with this definition of "hounding", particularly as it may relate to concerns over another editor's ability to properly read and interpret or concerns that an editor who has plagiarized a lot of text before may do so again? Also, if you could would you change anything about the additional comment you left below it? (Please note that this does not relate especially to my specific ArbCom case, nor to anyone involved in it; I just really like the definition as it is clearer than the one that's currently at WP:HOUND, and DGG's comment especially was something that honestly I would have liked to see enshrined in the final decision, and perhaps in any future statements ArbCom may make on the issue.)
    I think what I said makes it clear that I generally supported. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from Rschen7754

  2. What do you see as the role ArbCom should play in collaboration with functionaries from other Wikimedia wikis? -- Rs chen 7754 18:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    The key issues often involve checkuser, and the checkusers have a mailing list across all wikis in which they collaborate. Arb com otherwise does not usually take into formal account behavior elsewhere in WP., and I think many of us would have some hesitation in discerning their accepted standards, which requires more than just language knowledge. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from Piotrus

  2. Have you read this academic paper on ArbCom? Anything you agree/disagree/find interesting? (Disclaimer: I am the paper's author. I am not looking for pats on the back, but I am genuinely curious if you heard of it, read it, and what do you think of it; feel free to be critical of it, I am interested in your honest opinion on whether such research is useful, not in having my ego stroked). PS. If you reply here please WP:ECHO me back. TIA. Update: TBH, I am fast coming to the conclusion that ArbCom needs a training in how to use Google... and I'd have expected better from you, @ DGG: :P This paper is available for free non-registration fownload in at least 4 outlets, including plain Google Search which gives a Zenodo link which I cannot link here because it's on our spam blacklist (for crying out loud...); the others that everyone should try first being Google Scholar and Sci Hub. Please see [2]. Perhaps you can organize a small training session for your fellow Arbitrators instead of taking a WP:TROUT for - let's face it - not bothering to google before asking for a copy :P PS. Seems like Google search, Academia.edu and Zenodo links do not provide full access, so I guess it is not as easy as I expected, through I still think everyone in academia and beyond should know about the Sci Hub, so I guess it's only half-trout that's needed. I can eat the other part myself for not double checking the Google/Zenodo/Academia stuff. Anyway, I'll almost certainly vote for you regardless of whether your read the paper, since you've always been a voice of sanity in the wiki wilds. Good luck, P.
    Piotrus. as you did not apparently publish it open access, you will have to email me a copy. Based on the abstract alone, while you said that "there is clear evidence that some are much more active (and thus, influential) than others", I am not sure that the extent of on-line activity necessarily corresponds to influence; I am not sure that even the extent of off-line email activity corresponds to influence. It depends what is said and when. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Winged Blades of Godric

  2. Hi, DGG:-) Thanks for running! That, you have the special-goggles, do you feel using the sledgehammer of suppression over here, about a week, after the redacted-comments have been made (and prob. already heavily viewed courtesy the AN threads and finally the ArbCase) was optimal esp. in light of Iri's comment over here? Please elucidate.Thanks!
    As I am a candidate in the same election, and have recused from the arb com discussion, I'm sure you understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks. ∯WBG converse 09:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Curiously, you have already recused yourself as an arbitrator (after being prodded by others) because there is a genuine aspect that you might (And the might is quite quite big, as far as I know you:-)) try to increase your chances of success at ACE by passing a decision that adversely affects Fred's candidature.
Now that you have recused as an Arbitrator and your utterances have no more value than a random functionary, you can still go along the lines of Someone will read my privileged comments/reply (which may be intentionally biased to adversely affect Fred's candidature) and based on that, will vote out in the elections, where both I and Fred are standing thus leading to a case of probable COI.
But, it might be prudential to note, that to my eyes, your position is nothing different than Courcelles/Drmies, as to this part. locus and both of whom have already answered.
Obviously, you have a discretion to reply to my question or not to. But, I'm a bit curious about the motivations and also about whether I missed some other aspect:-) Were you not a current-member of Arbcom but a plain functionary, would you have answered in these circumstances? ∯WBG converse 20:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply

.

Speaking very generally, the functionaries necessarily have a wide range of discretion--the oversight, checkuser, and arb policies are not always bright lines We could argue among ourselves about each disputable case, but instead we tolerate differences. If we had to wait for explicit agreement , we'd not be able to accomplish our duties. Admins work similarly, and , in fact, so do all WP editors. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from FenixFeather

  2. I'm curious about what your philosophy on what content Wikipedia should strive to include. In this AFD discussion, you pushed for relaxed sourcing requirements for software related topics, but you came out strongly against treating minority topics with more consideration. Do you think Wikipedia should be primarily a resource for technical people? Or is there some other reason for why technical topics should be given more leeway on Wikipedia? – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 18:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Sourcing has to be in relation to what is appropriate to the topic, and different topics have different interpretations of the guidelines. When working in under-covered areas, we do make some allowances, but in a project to catch up, it is much more effective to cover the most notable first. It is not a good idea to argue from general principles to cover every specific case, and it is also not a good idea to argue from specific cases and extend them into general principles. The actual rules are the way we apply them to articles, not the way we state them in either policy guidelines or arguments. And in a system that operates like WP, there is not point in aiming for complete consistency. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Nannadeem

  1. Could you please give further details of your mottos for my better understanding: (1) merits rather than the technicalities of procedures? (2) quality of the encyclopedia? Suppose I am somewhat expert in poetry and edit pages related to physics or chemistry. Does it sense to accept gravity of this user over these subjects he is discussing, deleting or editing and opting use of WP norms (bureaucracy)
    As applies specifically to arb com, (1) Decide both cases and appeals on the merits, not on whether they follow the rules and exactly how to make a request. That may sound obvious, but many arbs present and past judge first whether all the formalities have been done in the correct order, and only then will they look at the actual merits of a request. . (2)The quality of the editing is important, but its quality with respect to the WP norms for content. One of these norms is that nobody owns an article, so that anyone editing, no matter how qualified and expert or how skilled a writer, must let others participate, Working cooperatively is not primarily a bureaucratic requirement, but the basis of what we do here. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  1. Your opinion if a paid user should be identified at click. Nannadeem ( talk) 19:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    If you mean, whether a paid editor should be identified, yes of course he they should and they are required to be. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from User:BU Rob13

  2. In the past, the Arbitration Committee's role in dispute resolution had been described as "break[ing] the back[s]" of disputes the community is unable to resolve. Sometimes, this involved taking actions unpopular with the community or actions that were criticized as "draconian". More recently, I would say the Committee has become more hesitant to act unless their actions would have widespread support in the community, especially when those actions affect popular editors (or, less charitably, unblockables). At the center of this is a concern that taking decisive action on a dispute could lead to consequences, but in my experience, the default action of doing nothing often carries consequences as well. Further, doing nothing or taking only minor actions that do not resolve the underlying dispute often narrows the workable options available to the Committee, turning difficult-to-solve disputes into nearly unsolvable disputes. Could you comment on these two general schools of thought and what your approach to arbitration would be? More directly, do you think it is sometimes necessary to take unpopular or draconian actions to "break the back" of a dispute, or should such actions always be avoided?
    You and I have been fellow members of the committee for the past year. It is very easy to get frustrated in this role, because thought it may appear that we have real authority, in practice (like everywhere in Wikipedia), we only have the effective power people are willing to give it: if there is no consensus to follow its decisions they will not be enforced. As I see it from somewhat longer experience, the current committee is actually slightly more willing to take on established contributors than in the past. What confuses this issue is that the current committee is also a little more willing to take informal action than in the past. I think both trends are to be encouraged, and I am running for re-election in the hope of doing what is possible in both respects. As compared to you, I do not consider it always possible to deal with the root cause of disputes, and I do not always think it appropriate to deal with things by taking the most drastic action possible.But I think we both agree on the need to deal with established editors, and the need to deal with a somewhat greater variety of matters than the committee has been choosing to limit itself to. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from User:Grillofrances

  2. What do you think about reverting an edition which provides true information, 100% of the info is based on reliable sources, it's objective, grammatically correct, not offending anybody and useful for the article but it's reverted because a new editor just claims this info is redundant?
    I donot see how it is possible to give a meaningful answer to this in the abstract. Tell me what you're asking about and I'll give you my opinion on that particular situation. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from User:Ryk72

Discretionary sanctions (DS) now cover more than 30 topic areas (per WP:DSTOPICS).

  2. In determining the "effectiveness" of DS, what factors should be taken into account?
    An effective DS is one that never has to be used, because having it there is enough to keep people from escalating disputes., but it can also be one which is used to keep things in line with the general consensus.
  4. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?
    As one example, it seems to work fairly well in keeping NPOV articles on current US politics. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  6. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS not been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?
    As one example, it seems not to keep articles to a NPOV on PIA, possibly because there is no consensus NPOV in that area. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  8. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS been effective in addressing conduct or behavioural issues, but otherwise detrimental to the encyclopedia? If any, in what ways & why?
    BLP. It is caable of being misused for censorship, or to enforce a POV that is not really NPOV.
  10. Other than DS, what measures could ArbCom take in addressing conduct issues? Which, if any, of these alternatives should ArbCom take?
    I tend to favor topic bans, and straightforward 1RR and if necessary 0RR. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  12. Of which of your contributions to Wikipedia are you most proud? Why?
    In trying to answer this, what comes to my mind is the limitations on all that I or any one person here can accomplish. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these questions. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from User:GRuban

  2. Just yesterday, you commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Parent (2nd nomination): "possibly speedy delete G11 as promotionalism." This is an article that got a Keep result in a previous AfD, and had 18 references, many from national news outlets, at the time you commented (now 26). Am I misunderstanding, or are you saying that, as an arbitrator, if an administrator were to wp:speedy delete an article like this, you would consider that a reasonable action, and deserving of keeping their administrator privileges? -- GRuban ( talk) 16:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    !Votes at AfD are a content matter, and not the concern of arb com. The way an admin !votes in an AfD is no different from any other editor and has no additional weight beyond any other editor. The way an admin closes at AfD is reviewable by Deletion Review. When an admin has many reversals at Deletion Review, people have sometimes brought matter to ANB or ANI; it is conceivable that it might then go to Arb Com, but I do not think this has ever happened, at least recently, though I would have to check the records to be sure. But you are talking as if i actually did use speedy, and I did not use speedy, and went to some trouble to word it to make it clear that I was not using speedy. In my own !vote, the phrase you quote, which is exactly the same as I said at the prior AfD, is that it was so promotional that it was possibly within speedy territory, and a statement like that is essentially a statement of strong delete for promotionalism. Promotionalism is a good reason for deletion, and the extent of notability in a case like that is irrelevant. Any of the reasons at WP:NOT is a reason for deletion, though people mistakenly think AfD only involves notability--an understandable misconception, since most of the time notability is indeed the issue. Now, when I close an AfD I strictly follow consensus, but when I comment or !vote at AfD I give my own opinion. Sometimes my opinion is that we should make a change in a prior consensus, or, more often, an exception to a general rule. The community has the power to make exceptions to guidelines wherever there is consensus to do so; the place where we make such exceptions with respect to keeping articles is at AfD, and about 5% of the closures are in essence such exceptions or reinterpretations. To summarize, I think out of my 40,000 deletions over the past ten years, that 3 or 4 of my speedy deletions or afd deletion closes have in fact been overturned at Deletion Review, . I do not think that a 0.01% of overturned decisions is a reason to de-admin anybody. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your answer. I'm not planning to de-admin you, you are a fine editor and admin, and can absolutely opine as you like at AfD; however you're running for ArbCom which, among other things, acts as the oversight of admin actions, so my question was, as an arbitrator, would you have considered an admin speedy deleting this article reasonable. I don't think you quite answered that, but I won't demand more, that would be badgering. Again, thank you. -- GRuban ( talk) 03:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I shall answer you directly: I would not have considered a speedy deletion for promotionalism so entirely unreasonable as to be a justification for action at ani, let alone arb com. There is a wide range of action between those things I would personally do, and those things I think so wrong as to be worthy of censure. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you -- GRuban ( talk) 21:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from User:Ryoung122

G

  2. rGeetings,

Lately, it seems that some POV editors have joined together in certain topic areas to push Deletionism, and that includes: -coordinating and canvassing to get multiple "Delete" votes at once -not giving people a chance to improve articles, including by nominating articles faster than people can respond to the deletions -enforcing self-made ad-hoc rules rather than using the Wikipedia NPOV, NOR, and GRG guidelines. -using a "heads I win, tails you lose" wiki-lawyering approach, whereby their editorial philosophy is not consistent, only the end result desired

Might there be a way to appeal to ArbCom for a "pause" or "stop" in a POV edit-push campaign, whether there has been a "Wiki-War"-type dispute or not? It seems that Wikipedia editing in many instances has become more dominated by just a few powerful editors, who are often more concerned with their own egos than employing any ethical, consistent standard.

As an ArbCom member, do you believe that you can be tough enough to stand up to the toughest Wiki-bullies, even if they also happen to be established editors? Let's not forget that this can be a mirror of real life. US Supreme Court justice Hugo Black was also a KKK member: the point is, just because someone has power doesn't mean they have ethics. You seem to have ethics, but sometimes are viewed as "too nice" to stand up to those pushing strongly for their POV ad hoc decisionmaking. Ryoung122 06:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  1. There are a number of very important things to discuss here.; I'm going to try to deal with aa few right now , and expand it later today. . (A) Deletionism. Basically, what an individual means by saying someone is too "inclusionist", is that they wants to include articles the individual personally does not think significant, and for deletionist, the opposite. WP is a community project, and the way forward is to accommodate rather than challenge each others' hobbies are predilections.,which puts me for most topics in the category of inclusionist. I'm also a deletionist, for articles contaminated with promotionalism.It is necessary to keep in mind the fundamental principles, of which the most important are NPOV and NOTADVERTISING. Without them, we're not an encyclopedia . In contrast, NOTDIRECTORY, while important, is less critical--we are an almost equally good encyclopedia if we are inclusive or restrictive in any particular subject area for those individual articles of borderline importance. (B) Tactics.The way to deal with systematic problems is to pick your battles: to select the articles worth arguing about, the ones that are most import and that give the best chance of success. And then to fight a reasonable degree, not making so much of a fuss as to prejudice others against your view. And then to keep coming back to the issue, at reasonable intervals. (D) Manner. I think the only way to stand up that is effective is to do it gently. I'm going to admit right here what my friends know already, that my Wikipedia persona is much more temperate the way I act in real life. Some people find themself less restrained here because it relatively anonymous, but I find it easier to be cautious and even calm, because there's time to consider my response. I usually do not immediately send what I've written, but revise it for hours or days before I post it. And then I can come back to correct it or supplement it. I can even admit I'm wrong without feeling foolish. And if someone is too hostile to deal with, I don't have to answer. (d) Specifics: What is needed in AfD discussions to ensure fairness is greater participation. If more people made an effort to join in a few discussions of articles others than their primary concerns, we'd get a wider range of opinion. It's the only practical way to deal with special interest groups or canvassing. The notability guidelines are guidelines, not policy: they are intended to be applied with judgement in the realization that there will be exceptions. that isn't even using IAR, just recognizing thenature of guidelines. I've said many times I think the current source-based approach should receive less emphasis--notability does in my opinion correspond to importance in a field. As an admin of course, I judge strictly by the accepted guideline, but in argument as an ordinary WPedian, I argue for what I think we ought to be doing. Bad administrative decisions are a problem, but normally those concerning deletion can be adequately dealt with at Deletion Review--ANI mis rarely concerned, and arb com almost never. It may just be my extensive experience with deletion discussions, but I think the AfD/Del Rev combination is one of the most successful WP processes. I, frankly, do not see WP as being dominated by a few powerful editors--I see on important issue a very wide range of opinions. The only weakness is that decisions can be affected more by who is the better arguer than who has the strongest case, but all consensus -based systems have that problem. (of course, I'm influenced by the fact that I know how to argue here effectively, but all it takes to learn is experience, and a little boldness. (e) Ethics. To summarize, I know what I think WP ought to be, and I also know what it is. The necessary ethical principle is to be willing to operate in boundaries of the actual system and to give other people their turn. (I have made it my own rule to generally avoid commenting more than twice in a single discussion--If I haven't convinced people in two tries, a third won't be likely to do it. ) Perhaps some people think that's too nice to be effective, but as I look back over my 12 years here, I've seen as much progress to my goals of greater responsibility of content and inclusion and fairness of process as can reasonably be expected, which is perhaps a 30% success rate. WP is a long-term project. The people who are more impatient have not generally succeeded nearly as well. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Candidates/DGG/Questions&oldid=883367624"