Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here? - Forgive for asking you the same question as the other candidates, although you are in a different position ;)

   No problem. :-) Thanks. This relates directly to my statement about being happy to change my mind when new arguements are heard. The underlying case is here and a subsequent case is here. That has a complex background but the central point of your question concerns WP:CIVIL and whether it is ever possible to justify obvious incivility on the basis of what others did or on "being right". The declined case shows that I initially had a view opposite to that later expressed by Opabinia regalis, but subsequently changed to support a statement by another colleague in the light of Joe's comments (and OR's). In the proposed decision of the subsequent case I supported the six-month ban which occurred. No one has gained consensus for rules saying that a string of expletives is automatically blockable whereas a "long bureaucratese-y way" of conveying the same message is acceptable. In short, I can agree with Opabinia regalis and with those who have an opposite view since each has valid points. Each case needs to be judged on its merits. As someone with practical experience and theoretical knowledge of archaeology, the career I probably should have followed, I know that in most cases, context is key. I don't think we're going to find cut and dried answers to this issue.

   Thank you. Just for clarification: the underlying thing was a case request. - One of the candidates asked what I want to know ;) - I liked you changing your mind, the first round. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Collect

2. Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?

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?

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"?

Question from Banedon

2. Some time ago you voted for George Ho to be blocked [1] in relation to his dispute with TRM. With the benefit of two years of hindsight, do you think your vote was correct? Banedon ( talk) 23:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   No, I think I was wrong. At the time I was aware of clear problems associated with his editing going back to late 2011 when he was blocked and then unblocked with mentorship (the case also has a "finding of fact" regarding his disruption), and as I indicated then his arbitration request [2] was what triggered my vote. If I'd looked at the top of his talk page before voting [3] I probably wouldn't have voted for a block, and I'm glad another remedy was found. Thanks for this question, it's a useful reminder to me that whatever I may think I see it can help to check an editor's user and talk pages to see if there's any background information that can help me understand a situation.

Question from Softlavender

2. What has been the most rewarding aspect of your time spent on ArbCom? Softlavender ( talk) 02:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Alex Shih

2. Is it the role of the committee to serve the community, or is it community's role to serve the committee? My impression from the following comment of yours ( [4]) seems to imply a stance closer to the latter. Another colleague of yours seems to take a similar stance, which was rebuked by AGK here ( [5]). My question to you is, do you agree with AGK's rebuttal to your colleague there? Further, if everything was the result of miscommunication, what will you do, if re-elected, to ensure that the committee stays closer connected with the community?

   of course the role of the committee is to serve the community. I don't see any suggestion to the contrary. My informal reminder was to let people know the standard operating procedure that applies: see the notice at the top of the page added three weeks before my comment which is the same idea that applies to WP:AE and was simply a clerical point. The issue addressed by AGK was something different. I saw AGK's comment as simply saying that WP:RFARs should be open to community opinion. As someone who has to read through all the responses I've got some sympathy with my colleagues view, but I still think that until a request is decided anyone should be able to post (so long of course as their posts are relevant). I don't see the miscommunication problem that you do.

4. Do you agree with Courcelles's answer to my question here ( [6]), 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". If yes, may I ask if this has been the approach that you have been taking as a member of the committee, and if re-elected, what will you do to ensure this expected level of conduct continues to be maintained on the mailing list?

   Yes, of course. We need to work together, which is hard to do if everyone doesn't treat everyone else with respect. Sometimes there may be sharp disagreement over issues or principles, but I don't recall any degeneration into rudeness or insults, which can and should be avoided. Of course it is necessary to speak plainly and frankly, if for no other reason than to avoid being misunderstood. And we need a culture where disagreements - even sharp disagreements - can be discussed openly and honestly. I think I've tried to maintain these standards. As for non-subscribers, you'll have read Drmies response. We get emails about such things as personal threats (to the extent that one person had to find a safe house) as well as personal threats aimed directly at us and the usual trolls, repeated bombardments of the same complaint over and over, incomprehensible emails, etc. Sometimes our comments may reflect our feelings about those and I don't think that's unreasonable. But in the more normal situations, of course we should treat the mention of non-subscribers with respect.

6. What is your stance on improving the transparency of ArbCom, and the target dates for drafting cases? For example, if a deadline will be missed, should the drafting arbitrator inform the community that the deadline will be missed, or should they wait until someone from the community to bring it up?

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?

Question 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? Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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? Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:32, 13 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. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from 28bytes

2. Hi Doug. 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.)

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?

Question from Liz

2. Hello, Doug. 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!} 01:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from Fram

2. Hi. You are one of the arbs who voted for the unban of User:Guido den Broeder (and had, unlike many of your colleagues, the honesty to admit it afterwards, thanks for that). What, if anything, would you do different if a somewhat similar situation occurred now?

Questions from David Tornheim

2. I noticed that you did not participate in this RfC asking 'Should the "repetitive usage" of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable"?’  Were you aware of this RfC with hundreds of respondents? If so, is there a reason why you did not weigh in?

4. If you had weighed in, what would your answer have been?

6. Is it okay to say 'fuck off' in anger to other editors?

8. Is it okay to say 'fuck off’ to another editor in a dispute over content or when one believes the other editor to be breaking Wikipedia rules?

10. What is your opinion about use of ad hominems?

12. Is it acceptable to use pejorative labels of other editors such as climate-change-denier, anti-vaxxer, flat-earther, etc., (especially without diffs) to discredit them in a dispute that has nothing to do with the topic under consideration?

Questions from Atsme

2. Do you have the time and patience necessary to devote to this highly taxing responsibility, and by that I mean not judging an editor based on preconceived notions without careful examination of the case or simply agreeing with aspersions cast by opposing editors you may know and trust without personally investigating the diffs in the context the challenged editor intended, or waiting until other arbs have posted their conclusions and simply agreeing in an effort to avoid making waves? My primary concern is that some arbs are accepting the position when it’s quite obvious they neither have the time nor the patience required to actually read the diffs provided as evidence to make sure they were presented in the context originally intended by the challenged editor.

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) 22:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

2. 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) 22:42, 13 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?

Question from Feminist

2. How can Wikipedia better communicate its processes to outsiders?